Introduction
Democratic countries, regardless of being constitutional states that adhere to the human rights requirements, use torture as one of its repressive policies, particularly in events of perceived insecurity. 1 Is the use of torture ethical or justified on some occasions? The Ticking Bomb (TTB) scenario has often been employed as a tool to justify national policies that support the use of torture as one of the interrogation techniques. According to the scenario, a terror suspect has set up explosives that will blow up soon in an unknown place within a major public setting, and no standard methods of intelligence extraction have been successful. In his 1804 essay Means of Extraction for Extraordinary Reasons , Bentham probes the readers to consider a situation where sensible suspicion exists that the accused has relevant intelligence, that if acquired, will help minimize the potential suffering of numerous innocent civilians. 2 In the essay, readers are further pushed to consider a situation where a significant number of innocent people are actually suffering, by illegal administration of pain equal in the magnitude of those if administered through the judicial or legal means, would be categorized as torture. 3 The question raised by the scenario is as to whether or not, in this particular situation, it is ethical to use repressive interrogation on the terrorist for the intelligence required to avert the imminent threat in time. While most ethical views consider the use of deliberate torture of suspects to be wrong, the scenario has been considered as a possible counter-example to the aforementioned moral absolutism. The ticking bomb scenario presupposes a strong disinclination towards torture, and thus the case is framed in a manner where the defense of an absolute ban of torture is extremely difficult. In its extreme, the consequentialist argument for torture becomes too strong. As a result, some thinkers challenge the justification provided in these extreme cases with many implicit assumptions. On the contrary, instead of justifying torture based on the ticking bomb scenario, some thinkers prefer to take on the issue of torture itself. The scenario makes implicit assumptions that the interrogator has evidence to believe that the 'ticking bomb' exists, that the suspect in custody has the required intelligence, that torture is the only method available for acquiring the necessary information, that the torture is likely to provide the necessary information, and finally, that there is a chance of stopping the attack in time but only with the information being held back by the terror suspect.
The general argument in support of the use of torture is mainly driven by the utilitarian "greater good" justification. According to the utilitarian "greater good" justification, it is ethical to sacrifice the life of one person and save a million lives. The utilitarian structure weighs the fate of many innocent individuals against the sacrifice of one person's human rights, and in such an event, it is moral and permissible to use torture. 4 Based on the ticking bomb scenario, when it is known that a dangerous explosive has been set up in a busy city, it is probably ethically justified to torture the accused to save the lives of many. Moreover, far greater moral guilt falls on a leader in authority who permits the occurrence of a catastrophe and the death of millions rather than choosing to torture on the culpable individual.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The "reasonable person" doctrine has also been used to drive the ethical need of torture in some cases, for example, the ticking bomb situation. According to the doctrine, one cannot fault a person for torturing a suspect if many reasonable people would do the same in such a situation. 5 A reasonable person is a person that is justified wherever justification is required; he or she is justified in his or her actions. In other words, a reasonable person's decisions, motives, beliefs, and emotions are taken, formed, held, or experienced for undefeated reasons. 6 The reasons for conducting something are either overweighed or excluded from consideration countervailing persons. Based on the aforementioned definition, a torturer should obviously be excused for his or her action and decision to torture a suspect if any other reasonable person would do it. Therefore, it will be justified for an interrogator to infringe on the liberty of the suspect in custody if the lives of millions are at stake, provided they are certain they can extract information using the coercive interrogation technique.
According to the dirty hands' deontology perspective, national leaders may and should go against some of the essential moral prohibition services of avoiding an even greater calamity. 7 Contrary to consequentialists, which mainly focus on the outcome of an action or a decision, deontologist focus on the means used to achieve an outcome. Therefore, even if the outcome of torturing is saving millions of lives, a strict deontologist will still find the use of repressive interrogation to be unjustifiable. However, with the modified deontological view, repressive interrogation is still immoral, but it is allowed and even compulsory under prescribed cases. According to the modified deontological view, deontological perspectives and guidelines ought to be used to a certain threshold irrespective of the serious negative consequences; but when the consequences become so bad that they go beyond a stipulated limit, consequentialism should take over. Therefore, while repressive interrogation should be considered wrong under all circumstances, it is ethically and possibly mandatory in the cases of a ticking bomb scenario, particularly when a suspect is culpable.
Some thinkers have argued that the use of repressive interrogation on a terrorist, in a ticking bomb scenario, can be considered as torturing the guilty in self-defense. 8 If so, presumably, torture should be considered ethical in such incidences on the ground that torturing in self-defense is the same as killing in self-defense. Since self-defense is justification for killing, which in normal instances is a serious crime, self-defense in the case of the ticking bomb scenario should also be given the same leniency experienced by perpetrators of murder in self-defense. There may be many differences between torturing the guilty in self-defense and killing in self-defense. First, while killing in self-defense eliminates the threat immediately, torturing in self-defense does not eliminate the threat immediately. 9 In addition, while the argument of killing in self-defense is permissible when a person is protecting his or her own life and that of the family, torturing in self-defense considers protecting the lives of people who do not necessarily have a relationship with the torturer. Nonetheless, although torturing is one act and removing the threat is another act that depends on the first act, it can still be considered as self-defense since the chain of activities results in disarming the ticking bomb and thus eliminate the threat. 10 Furthermore, according to some thinkers, self-defense should be considered as justification for protecting any human life irrespective of whether there is a close relationship between the potential victims and the torturer. Moreover, the use of torture in the one-off cases where there is a need to defend the lives of innocent people will not necessarily lead to the institutionalization of torture.
The scenario presents three primary value sets in question: the safety of innocent citizens, respect for individual rights, and democratic transparency and accountability. 11 Ideally, liberal society and the legitimate government should not violate the first of the three values. Besides, the just war tradition allows the employment of physical aggression, particularly if an individual presents himself or herself as an enemy in just wars. 12 Therefore, only pacifists can argue against the violation of an enemy of the state's human rights. In the ticking bomb scenario, the torturing of an enemy combatant, in this case, the terror suspect, to acquire necessary intelligence to save lives is analogous to killing him during the war to achieve similar goals. Based on the just war tradition, the human rights of the war enemy becomes irrelevant when they obtain their right to use force against enemy combatants. 13 Therefore, when a suspect decides to use force against a nation by planting a bomb in its city, the suspect loses the right not to be attacked and thus giving the torturer a moral and ethical ground to use repressive interrogation techniques on them. Although torture can be justified using the just wars tradition, it becomes problematic if a government denies its usage or use extra-judicial means, which violates the third sets of values. However, if torture is practiced in specific one-off cases with judicial oversight, such as the use of 'torture warrants', it can be considered ethically acceptable once the torture victim is declared an enemy of the state. 14
Despite the multiple arguments in support of the use of torture in the ticking bomb scenario, the hypothetical situation created in the ticking bomb scenario deviates significantly from the real-life dilemmas. The deontologist-consequentialist debate over torture provides useful background and reflects common reasoning when faced with this dilemma. The immediate focus in the argument against torture is the inhumanity of torture. On the other hand, the argument in support of torture is driven by the numerically greater threat to innocent people. Nonetheless, the situation in the ticking bomb scenario has been presented deceptively simply with multiple flaws, particularly with the multiple assumptions made in the argument.
Critical Analysis of the Ticking Bomb Scenario
The ticking bomb dilemma is based on five primary assumptions. The scenario makes implicit assumptions that the interrogator has evidence to believe that the 'ticking bomb' exists, that the suspect in custody has the required intelligence, that torture is the only method available for acquiring the necessary information, that the torture is likely to provide the necessary information, and finally, that there is a chance of stopping the attack in time but only with the information being held back by the terror suspect. 15 However, would torture be justified if there was only some weak evidence? The simplicity of the "ticking bomb" scenario serves to hide the context of the puzzle and the wider moral dilemmas it entails. The context of the "ticking bomb" scenario can be widened to examine the implication of undermining the ban against the use of torture and allowing the extended practice and the adverse effect of torture. 16
The first assumption made in the ticking bomb scenario is that there is an obvious knowledge of the existence of the "ticking bomb" situation. In the presentation of the scenario, there is an argument that there should be a legal exception to the prohibition against torture if the threat against innocent civilians is imminent. However, in reality, there is little certain intelligence that can pinpoint with surety about the existence of a ticking bomb. Moreover, even if it was known with surety that there is a plan to bomb a city, how soon or far into the future questions the need to use torture. On one side, to represent a ticking bomb scenario, the timing of the bombing must be far enough into the future to provide a realistic amount of time to do something to avert the attack. 17 On the other side, if the attack is far off into the future, other methods such as humane interrogation can be adopted to prevent the occurrence of the attack and thus eliminating the need for the use of torture. 18 Besides, other methods, evacuation, for example, can be adopted to prevent the loss of life. Furthermore, the justification of torture where the torture is uncertain about the existence of the bomb is weakened because its necessity is much harder to demonstrate.
The "ticking bomb" scenario also assumes that the suspect in custody holds the information needed to stop the attack. In a pure ticking bomb case, the terror suspect is someone who is known, beyond reasonable doubt, to be responsible for the attack and has the necessary information that can prevent it. 19 The hypothetical situation created in this situation is very rare in real-life events. In reality, the interrogator is unlike to have such a high level of certainty that the suspect is the perpetrator or has the relevant intelligence required. The innocent suspect with no information is more likely to suffer more when being tortured since they do not have any means to affect their fate and thus longer period of torture. The exception proposed in the ticking bomb case is vague and ambiguous, and as a result, provide allowance for the torture of any individual the authority suspects of any degree of involvement, a relative who is not involved in the plan to attack, and a child who may or may not have the necessary information to prevent the attack. 20 Thus, the proposed exception in a one-off case of a "ticking bomb" scenario quickly and naturally expands its boundaries to drag more victims into its clutches. In other words, the argument of the use of torture is weakened if there is a chance that the suspect is innocent and unable to provide assistance that can help prevent the attack. Besides, due to the lack of certainty, the argument in support of the use of torture becomes invalid as it goes against the value of protecting the innocent from pain; the less certain the torturer is about the quality of the information held back by the suspect, the less the use of torture can be justified.
The third assumption is that no other interrogation techniques other than torture can be used to extract the necessary information to prevent the occurrence of the terror attack. 21 If there is another way to make the suspect cooperate with the interrogator, it rules out any justification for the use of torture; torture can only be used as a last resort. Based on the hypothetical scenario, torture is the only option available. However, in reality, torture is not usually the only option. There are many other methods of interrogation that interrogators can use, including developing a friendly relationship with the suspect, plea bargaining, trickery, various psychological techniques, and disorientation, among other non-damaging psychological methods. 22 However, if torture is made to be one of the options available for the extraction of information, the torturer can decide to use torture without considering other available options. Furthermore, the presentation of torture as one of the interrogation options can promote the institutionalization of torture.
The assumption that the suspect will divulge the accurate information to defuse the bomb when put through torture is flawed. A suspect, in a bid to stop the torture experience, may be forced to provide answers, but there is no guarantee that his or her responses are truthful. Under torture, a culpable suspect may not tell the truth, and an innocent suspect cannot tell the truth. In addition, there are no methods to distinguish between truth from lies. Therefore, if the primary justification for using torture in the ticking bomb scenario is to acquire accurate and timely information to defuse any imminent treat, the chances of receiving false information from suspects due to the coercive environment of the torture room weaken the argument altogether. 23
The scenario is also based on the assumption that there is enough time to torture and extract the information required to avert the terrorist attack. However, if the information provided by the torture victim is misinformation designed to mislead the authorities, the torture will not lead to saving lives. Furthermore, the ticking bomb scenario also implies that repressive interrogation will stop immediately the interrogator believes he or she has acquired the necessary information. Therefore, the perpetrator has the power to stop the torture by providing information and misleading authorities long enough until the bomb goes off, and thus making the use of torture to be an ineffective way of preventing the attack. 24 In addition, most perpetrators who would plan and execute an attack are most likely trained to withstand torture until it is too late. In such an event, the justification for the use of torture when there is limited to defuse an attack becomes weak. Based on the ticking bomb scenario, torture should be used if there is an assurance that the necessary information will be extracted to save lives. However, if the torturer cannot acquire this information within the available timeframe due to suspects' deceitfulness and their tolerance for torture, the use of these repressive interrogation techniques cannot be justified.
The criticism of the abovementioned assumptions illustrates some of the primary weaknesses of the "ticking bomb" scenario. Upon the addition of uncertainty to these assumptions, the moral strength of the decision to inflict physical or psychological pain on a suspect is questioned. Besides, the assumptions of the hypothetical case differ significantly from real-life occurrences. The scenario assumes that torture will help in the acquisition of the truth. On the contrary, the use of torture does not necessarily mean that the torture victim will provide accurate and truthful information. Furthermore, there are chances that the bomb might not even exist, that the suspect is totally innocent, and it might be too late to prevent the attack. Moreover, there are multiple interrogation techniques that can be used effectively before torture can be considered. The chances of a scenario that makes torture absolutely necessary in reality are very rare and highly improbable.
Conclusion
The use of the "ticking bomb" scenario as justification for the use of torture has attracted divided opinions from different schools of thought. Arguments including the utilitarian "great good" justification, the reasonable person doctrine, and the dirty hand deontologist perspective, among others, have been employed to justify the use of torture in one-off cases. However, the simplicity of the scenario conceals the wider moral dilemma it entails. The scenario encourages people to consider the immediate implications of action or inaction, which strengthens the case. However, upon the in-depth analysis of the case, the assumptions and their weaknesses, the case against the morality or the legalization of torture is strengthened. In addition, when only one "ticking bomb" is considered, one might unknowingly ignore the potential impact of moral choice on the societal norms prohibiting the use of torture. The public might protest against an administration that has failed to protect its citizens against terrorist attacks, particular in the 21st century. As a result, there has been an increase in the use of repressive interrogation techniques on any terrorist suspects, especially in the United States. However, given the vast variation between the hypothetical situation and the real-life situation, torture may not be the best available solution. The justification for the use of torture in such a scenario is to successfully prevent the attack. However, if there are doubts of successfully averting the attack without inflicting pain on innocent individuals, the justification for the use of torture becomes difficult. If torture is carried out and it fails to prevent the terrorist attack, it becomes a undue punishment, which makes it unjustifiable. The difficulties in replicating the hypothetical situation in real-life make it difficult to justify torture using the "ticking bomb scenario".
Bibliography
Association for the Prevention of Torture. Defusing the Ticking Bomb Scenario: Why we must say no to torture, always. 2007.
Bellamy, Alex J. "No pain, no gain? Torture and ethics in the war on terror." International Affairs 82, no. 1 (2006): 121-148.
Bentham, Jeremy. "The Rationale of Punishment, ed." E. Dumont and transl. Richard Smith, London (1830): 388-524.
Evans, Rebecca. "The ethics of Torture." In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies . 2012.
Fisher, Matthew. "The Use of State-Sponsored Torture for National Security: A Debate on the Permissibility of Torture in the Name of Public Safety." (2019).
Gardner, John. "The many faces of the reasonable person." Law Quarterly Review 131, no. 1 (2015): 563-584.
Spino, Joseph, and Denise Dellarosa Cummins. "The ticking time bomb: when the use of torture is and is not endorsed." Review of Philosophy and Psychology 5, no. 4 (2014): 543-563.
Smith, Katie. "Is Torture ever Morally Acceptable? If so, Under what Circumstances? If not, why not?." E-International Relations Students. December 22 (2007).
"Torture (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) ". 2017 Plato.Stanford.Edu . https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/#MoraJustForLegaInstTort .
1 Rebecca, Evans. "The ethics of Torture." In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies . 2012: 54.
2 Jeremy, Bentham. "The Rationale of Punishment, ed." E. Dumont and transl. Richard Smith, London (1830): 388-524.
3 Fisher, Matthew. "The Use of State-Sponsored Torture for National Security: A Debate on the Permissibility of Torture in the Name of Public Safety." (2019).
4 Joseph, Spino, and Denise Dellarosa Cummins. "The ticking time bomb: when the use of torture is and is not endorsed." Review of Philosophy and Psychology 5, no. 4 (2014): 559.
5 Joseph, Spino, and Denise Dellarosa Cummins. "The ticking time bomb: when the use of torture is and is not endorsed." Review of Philosophy and Psychology 5, no. 4 (2014): 559
6 John, Gardner. "The many faces of the reasonable person." Law Quarterly Review 131, no. 1 (2015): 563-584.
7 Joseph, Spino, and Denise Dellarosa Cummins. "The ticking time bomb: when the use of torture is and is not endorsed." Review of Philosophy and Psychology 5, no. 4 (2014): 550.
8 Joseph, Spino, and Denise Dellarosa Cummins. "The ticking time bomb: when the use of torture is and is not endorsed." Review of Philosophy and Psychology 5, no. 4 (2014): 550.
9 “Torture (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) ". 2017 Plato.Stanford.Edu . https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/#MoraJustForLegaInstTort .
10 “Torture (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) ". 2017 Plato.Stanford.Edu . https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/#MoraJustForLegaInstTort
11 Alex J, Bellamy. "No pain, no gain? Torture and ethics in the war on terror." International Affairs 82, no. 1 (2006): 136
12 Ibid., 136
13 Ibid., 136
14 Alex J, Bellamy. "No pain, no gain? Torture and ethics in the war on terror." International Affairs 82, no. 1 (2006): 136
15 Association for the Prevention of Torture. Defusing the Ticking Bomb Scenario: Why we must say no to torture, always. 2007.
16 Katie, Smith. "Is Torture ever Morally Acceptable? If so, Under what Circumstances? If not, why not?." E-International Relations Students. December 22 (2007).
17 Association for the Prevention of Torture. Defusing the Ticking Bomb Scenario: Why we must say no to torture, always. 2007.
18 Ibid.
19 Association for the Prevention of Torture. Defusing the Ticking Bomb Scenario: Why we must say no to torture, always. 2007.
20 Ibid.
21 Katie, Smith. "Is Torture ever Morally Acceptable? If so, Under what Circumstances? If not, why not?." E-International Relations Students. December 22 (2007).
22 Katie, Smith. "Is Torture ever Morally Acceptable? If so, Under what Circumstances? If not, why not?." E-International Relations Students. December 22 (2007).
23 Ibid.
24 Katie, Smith. "Is Torture ever Morally Acceptable? If so, Under what Circumstances? If not, why not?." E-International Relations Students. December 22 (2007).
