These logistical problems are only one source of error in Levin's argument, however. The idea of establishing guilt with certainty before using torture fits the utilitarian ethic; it ensures that any reduction in happiness or good to the terrorist is more than compensated for by the increased happiness in the terrorist's would-be victims. The other part of Levin's argument, that torture should only be used as a preventative and not a punitive measure, also fits into utilitarianism. Punishment and confession to past acts does not create nearly enough happiness or good to make up for the pain caused by torture. But these two conditions for the use of torture -- that it is practiced with complete certainty of guilt and that it is solely preventative -- cannot logically coexist. In order for guilt of a terrorist to be certain, the act of evil has to have already been committed, which means any actions against the terrorist can no longer be preventative. Even if a terrorist known to have committed previous acts of terrorism were captured, it could not be shown with any certainty that they knew of imminent future attacks until they had already occurred, and even then the terrorist's foreknowledge could not actually be known. Prevention and guilt are simply not able to exist at the same time.
The argument for the justification of torture in the "ticking bomb" situation is put somewhat more compellingly by Seamus Miller: "the terrorist is forcing the police to choose between two evils, namely, torturing the terrorist or allowing thousands of lives to be lost. Were the terrorist to do what he ought to do, namely, disclose the location of the ticking bomb, the police could refrain from torturing him" (Miller, sec. 3.2). This seems to suggest that others can be responsible for the actions we choose to commit. Such logic...
Torture has been a tool of coercion for nearly all of human history, whether to instill fear in a population or force people to convert, but almost all contemporary attempts to justify the use of torture revolve around torture as a means of extracting information from a victim. Used in this context, torture has a number of prominent advocates, despite the fact that ample historical and experimental evidence suggests that
Torture Debate Torture Is Unacceptable Under No Circumstances Argument: torture is unacceptable because it is counterproductive Argument: torture is unacceptable because it is illegal Argument: torture is unacceptable because it is immoral Is Torture Ever Acceptable in Any Way? Although torture has existed as long as human history, liberal democracies in the last two centuries began to argue against the use of torture in all occasions because they began to see torture as a barbaric practice
Torture The use of non-lethal torture in interrogating possible criminals has always been an area of debate. It wasn't hot topic when the terrorist activities were kept at a down low in the nineties. However, following nine eleven and the surge of terrorists, it became necessary to be aware of the activities they were up to. The major debate lies in the fact that whether a known terrorist should be subjected
Torture and the Ticking Time-Bomb The Definition of Torture In 1984, the United Nations General Assembly produced an advisory measure known as the United Nations Convention Against Torture. This document specifically addressed torture from the perspective of governments and states, while it also focuses on the use of torture by any individual acting in an official capacity for said state or government. The document also addressed other forms of 'cruel and inhumane
The Spanish Inquisition, on the other hand, was meant to discourage heresy, but in the end was simply the murder of many innocent people. During Medieval times, torture was used as a form of public punishment and, most dreadfully, as not only a deterrent, but also as entertainment. 3. Torture is absolutely immoral. No conditions or circumstances would ever justify such terrible actions towards a person's fellow human beings. No
The dilemma lies herein: neither of the two approaches is entirely wrong. The former, seemingly more humane, also seems impractical considering the fact that the overall dangers that hover the world today in the form of weaponry available and tactics designed are far advanced and devastating than anything else that has been witnessed in history. Its impracticality lies in its overlooking the gravity of an attack and in how torture at
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now