Since September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S soil, the discussion on the use of torture as an anti-terrorism tactic has been dominant in the national security discussions. Some individuals argue for the use of torture while interrogating prisoners of war while others argue against its use on moral and ethical grounds. In the recent past, the debate has received renewed attention from the U.S Senate. The Senate released a committee report that indicated that some of the techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency to interrogate terrorism suspects are not only brutal but also ineffective. This has triggered a renewed debate on the issue of the use of torture. Philosophers John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant views on the use of torture help to put the issue into a better perspective.
Overview of the Ideas of Mill and Kant as they relate to Ethics
Mill's ethical theory varies with that proposed by Kant regarding making moral decisions. According to Mill, moral decisions should be directed by ethical reasoning. Mill suggests that moral reasoning should be guided by the Principle of Utility which aims to maximize the well-being of most individuals in the society. This means that the outcome of action should be the determinant of its morality or lack thereof. The Principle of Utility brings about the aspect of Utilitarianism which defines the pleasure that is consequential of suffering from a behavior ('Because It Is Wrong': A Meditation on Torture, 2010). This moral reasoning is what Michael Sandel refers to as consequential moral reasoning where the outcome of the behavior determines whether it is right or wrong.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Kant's ethical theory gives a different view of moral reasoning. Kant's theory proposes categorical imperative as the basis on which ethical decisions should be made. Categorical describes how essential behavior should be carried out while imperative describes the important action. Categorical imperative, therefore, is a principle that aims to guide the behavior of people towards others. Kant's proposes that people should act towards others the same way they would like others to act towards them. This is the rule that defines humanity. Human beings have a duty to act towards others in a specific way, and this should guide their moral decisions. According to Sandel, Kant's moral reasoning is that humans should treat others with equal measure as they would like to be treated (Harris, 2017).
Mill and Kant’s View on Torture
According to Mill, torture would be necessary based on utilitarianism. If the use of torture would result in a better outcome for the majority of individuals, then it would be morally right to use it on an individual to achieve the desired outcome. The outcome of the torture would determine its morality or its lack thereof. Mill would argue that in some situations, torture is justified for the greater good of most people in society (Harris, 2017). Kant would not, however, support the use of torture. This is because torture is morally wrong and would not be used in a normal situation. It is immoral to subject any individual to torture, and therefore it remains immoral to subject anyone to torture regardless of the situation. Torture by itself is inhuman, and some of the torture methods used on individuals go against fundamental human rights. In some cases, the torture methods put in jeopardy the lives of the tortured individuals and this is not only morally wrong but also legally unacceptable (Inskeep & Dershowitz, 2006).
Analysis of the Articles
It is imperative to look at the views of different authors on the issue of the use of torture. For this analysis, I will use three articles. The articles are; “In Defense of Torture” by Sam Harris , ‘Because It Is Wrong:’ A Meditation on Torture,” with Charles and Gregory Fried and “Rules Should Govern Torture, Dershowitz Says,” with Alan Dershowitz .
In Defense of Torture, the author argues for the use of torture to propagate the war on terrorism. He argues that there are situations that would present the use of torture as an ethically acceptable option to neutralize a threat. The author gives a hypothetical situation where a terrorist who has planted explosives that are dangerous to innocent citizens is captured. If the terrorist is uncooperative in revealing the location of the explosives, the interrogators would be morally justified to use torture to coerce the individual to disclose the location of the bombs. The moral principles demand that torture can be used to get information from a reluctant terrorist for the welfare of the majority.
In his defense, the author argues that torturing an individual who did not value human life when they either killed or threatened the life of innocent individuals would be ethically justified (Harris, 2017). The moral reasoning behind this argument is that by torturing this individual, vital information would be acquired which would help to prevent loss of innocent lives. The moral justification is that threat to the life of a single individual to save the lives of thousands of others is ethically acceptable. John Stuart Mill would likely support the argument put across by Sam Harris in his article. This is because of his firm belief in the consequential moral reasoning which supports the use of any means to achieve the desired results.
There are flaws in the argument put across by Sam Harris in that he states torture can be used at times. This means that there are situations that torture would be deemed as inhuman and immoral and such situations puts into question the moral justification of using torture in any circumstance.
In the article ‘Because it is wrong,' Charles and Gregory Fried categorically state that torture is illegal simply because it is wrong ('Because It Is Wrong': A Meditation on Torture, 2010). In particular, Charles argues that there is no such thing as reasonable torture which makes it wrong and therefore illegal. Gregory explains that in a democratic and civilized nation, torture should not be used against any individual because it violates the very fundamentals that sovereignty is built upon. The U.S constitution defines what is legal and illegal, and basically, torture is illegal and can never be justified. In support of their argument, Charles and Gregory identify the requirements of the constitution on the treatment of the prisoners. They are supposed to be treated with humanity (Herlihy, & Turner, 2018). This is what the founders of our nation such as Abraham Lincoln believed to be the definition of a democratic republic. Civilization has no room to allow for torture, and it can never be legally justified. Kant would support this argument in that he believes torture is morally wrong which would define it as illegal.
In this argument, there are flaws. Torture is still practiced despite its illegality which makes this argument weak. Regardless of what the law states, the CIA and other government security Agencies still use torture as a means of interrogation.
In the article ‘Rules should govern torture,’ Alan Dershowitz gives a very different perspective on the use of torture. He argues that torture can be used for a higher purpose, but rules should govern it. Dershowitz further contends that in exceptional situations, the president may authorize the use of torture to save the lives of thousands of citizens. In such a scenario, the president would break laws and treaties to protect the lives of citizens. There should be rules that govern the use of torture. Such regulations would define situations that warrant the use of torture.
Dershowitz supports his argument by stating that there are torture methods that may bear fruits by causing discomfort to the prisoner. For instance, the use of sleep deprivation and loud music as torture methods would most likely break a prisoner without necessarily harming them (Inskeep & Dershowitz, 2006). Torture is morally wrong and against the law. However, if the president legalized the use of torture, Alan Dershowitz would support it due to his firm belief that if well governed, torture would help to fight terrorism.
The flaw in this argument is that all people do not agree on the use of torture. Some individuals consider torture to be morally and legally inappropriate while others believe it to be appropriate in certain situations. In my opinion, Kant, Charles and Gregory Fried are ethically right to argue against torture. The torture methods used are inhuman, and they violate fundamental human rights. Subjecting an individual to a situation that would endanger their life is immoral and unacceptable under all circumstances. It is unethical to submit a human to animal-like conditions to gather information. Such individuals should be treated with humanity, and such an approach may soften their heart and reconsider their actions.
References
Herlihy, J., & Turner, S. (2018). Legal and Ethical Considerations Related to the Asylum Process. In Mental Health of Refugee and Conflict-Affected Populations (pp. 305-324). Springer, Cham.
Inskeep, S., & Dershowitz, A. (2006, Jun., 27). Rules Should Govern Torture, Dershowitz Says. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5512634
‘ Because It Is Wrong': A Meditation on Torture. (2010, Sept., 10). Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129780844
Harris, S. (2017, Dec., 04). In Defense of Torture. Retrieved from https://samharris.org/in-defense-of-torture/
