Is Torture Right or Wrong? - Paper Example

Introduction

The aspect of torture has been denounced, initially in the 1984 convention. The convention on torture provides that under no circumstances should torture be legalized as a justification of any kind. Torture is also expressly prohibited under global legal framework defined under the Third, Fourth Geneva Convention and the United Nation Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Opotow, 2007). While there is a general acceptance that torture is wrong, the consequentialist theorists are of the argument that torture is justified under some situations. The view held by the consequentialist has gained alarming momentum (Arrigo, 2004). It is against this backdrop that the current paper finds its motivation in which it examines the moral justification of torture. In so doing, the paper employs the consequentialist and utilitarian moral theory as the basis to determine the moral justification in favor and against torture.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

By exploring the aspect of torture from both views, the paper can identify pitfalls of the arguments in favoring torture from both a moral and practical perspective. Following the September terrorist attack on the US soil, the aspect of torture has found widespread support from the public realm. The support of torture is largely attributed to the "ticking bomb scenario." While the support from the deontological and virtue ethics offers incisive views against torture, they fail to address officials directly responsible for national security in a utilitarian framework (Opotow, 2007. The 'ticking bomb' scenario has given lawyers, politicians and military officials a leeway to disregard the international treaties, for instance, the Geneva Conventions. From the definition, torture is the deliberate infliction of extreme pain. As such, the virtue of this definition sees torture as a morally wrong practice.

The ticking bomb scenario has often been used to lay claim on the justification of torture and can be used to liberate people from the taboo that torture is ethically wrong. This argument proposes the legalization of torture only in exceptional circumstances. The ticking bomb argument is a scenario whereby a situation is brought forward of a terrorist who has been captured, and he/she is privy to information about a terror that is going to take place. This terror is going to kill thousands of people, and the only way to get information about this terror is torturing the captured terrorist. Campaigners against torture will agree that even if in such a situation the torture inflicted on the individual will help save plenty of lives, this one live also matters and that is why torture is not an option in any given circumstance. While most people will argue that this is the best means to deal with terrorists, the idea of using torture to save lives is not enough rationalization of mishandling suspects.

However, there is a contrary view that action that is ethically wrong might find justification under what is referred to as extreme circumstances such as the ticking bomb scenario. The contemporary debate on torture offers detailed discussion against torture. The discussions center on the infliction of extreme suffering on an individual. Persuaders against torture will argue that torture is wrong in all moral standards. As mentioned above, torture is something preconceived, an infringement on an individual's rights and the undoing of the individual's identity through uncouth means which involve physical and psychological pain, bordering on the extreme, being inflicted on the torture victim. This is usually done to render the victim helpless to be in control over them and make them go against their will.

The thought upheld by theorists in this area view torture as a violation of human rights as prescribed under international treaties and convention. (Brecher, 2008). The moral justification of torture debate is supported under what is referred to as the extreme emergencies, for instance, the ticking bomb scenario. The principal concern of torture in extreme circumstances is directed towards terrorists. Two groups justifying torture can be identified. The first group argues affirmatively that the ticking bomb scenario provides the basis to torture suspects. Such theorists uphold the consequentialism theory, for instance, utilitarianism.

The argument from the second group is contrary to the inherent immorality of torture. The supporters of this group are of the opinion that torture is not always successful in eliciting information from the terrorist. They argue on the basis that the person being tortured will always tell what the torturers would wish to hear (Opotow, 2007). Often disguised as "enhanced interrogation techniques," torture has also proven to be ineffective. A victim under torture, both physical and psychological will give any information to make the torture go away. This includes both wrong and right information just to save the situation. Torture, in most situations is most likely to produce unclear and unreliable, instead of straightforward information that can be relied on.

Based on both theories, many countries around the world have outlawed torture. To add to that, most countries have, over a long period forbidden in legal proceedings, the use of any evidence acquired employing torture. A good number of professional organizations have also illegalized the use of torture based on their ethical codes. Thus the convention in place championing against the use of torture emphasizes the fact that torture is morally wrong by ensuring that counties should deal with supposed torturers within the country's legal boundaries without considering where it happened.

Laws in the federal statute against torture consisting of three sections clearly define the crime that is torture. The laws advocate for harsh punishment to anyone- whether an American or not- who engages in the act of torturing another individual, not within the US. A jail term of 20 years is handed to any individual having been proven guilty of torturing a suspect mores o if the victim in question may have succumbed to the injuries sustained.

The society expects that individuals act morally and ethically at all times. Hence the reason why torture is morally and ethically wrong and is prohibited in totality. And so, on this basis, advocates against torture will argue that no amount of torture should ever be used or advocated for under any given circumstance, even in the ticking bomb scenario. They argue that torture, in any form, is very humiliating and is probably the most severe suffering an individual can go through. In the event that the suspected going through torture does not have the required information, then the torture inflicted on the suspect is useless, and the person is in no position to change their fate. The suspect is subjected to a helpless situation and his/her dignity and personality reduced to nothing. Physically and psychologically, the victim is only being used as a means to an end. The individual feels degraded, and more often than not, the effects of torture are often expected to last a very long time, if not forever. In the long run, the society is also affected by these acts of torture. The person inflicting the torture may also not be in their right minds hence would not be in a position to determine how much torture is too much.

The liberal persuaders compare torture and the existing values as defined within the framework of liberal institutions. They see an incompatibility between the two. The protagonists in this area are of the assumption that if torture is justified under the extreme circumstances, then it there is the need to legalize it. The ticking bomb scenario, which academics, politicians, and lawyers have found solace in their quest to legalize torture, works by intimidating the audience. They have used it to create doubt among citizens on the total prohibition of torture. Advocates of the ticking bomb scenario have designed it to lead the audience to agree that torture should be a legal exception to the absolute prohibition on torture in what they call "extreme circumstances" or "particular cases." Recently the scenario has gained prominence amongst campaigners who want to legalize torture and make it applicable to suspects serving prison from whom crucial information is needed, and to suspects of any involvement in terror attacks. In so doing, the campaigners will gain legal immunity for everyone who is an advocate of torture.

Conclusion

In light of this claim, therefore, torture need to be warranted under extreme emergencies. In what can be inferred to as the age of terror, the once and immovable stand against torture finds itself in a dark ground. The terrorism has made it easy for academics, politicians, and lawyers to justify torture under what it has been referred to as ticking bomb or extreme emergencies.