Should You Commit Torture?

February 1, 2012 by theriskyshift in Debate with 56 Comments

What would you do in a ticking bomb scenario? Should you commit torture?

It’s the 7^thJuly 2012. In the past few days, you, in your role as an Intelligence Officer at MI5, have become aware of a plot to blow a plane up over the skies of London with a surface to air missile. The perpetrators want to show the world that they do not need to board a plane to destroy it and that they are capable of striking at the heart of every and any Western country. Not only will all passengers and crew perish should the attack proceed, but the remnants of the aircraft falling to the ground over central London will undoubtedly cause mass hysteria and further casualties. This is of course aside from the nightmarish images that will be broadcast instantly around the world instilling fear and apprehension into the minds of many.

The plot was uncovered following covert reconnaissance on a suspect who has now been detained. Interviews have proved unsuccessful, all attempts at trickery, plea bargaining and psychological techniques have been used and failed. The only way to stop this attack is to use more forceful methods to extract the required information. Should you commit torture?

The ticking bomb scenario is a challenge to views held by most liberal democratic nations: torture is always wrong in any and all circumstances. The scenario fabricates a simple theoretical situation whereby torture appears the ‘right’ and ‘reasonable’ thing to do. In order to do this the writer must declare the truth of a mass of information which would be impossible to know in a much more complex political reality. She must know that the missile will be launched, that the launch will be a success, the plane will be hit and all passengers will die, the suspect is definitely the perpetrator and the torture would be successful in releasing important information. If just one piece of information in the above list is inaccurate, our confidence in our choice to torture as ‘right’ and ‘reasonable’ is cast into doubt. By using a simple theoretical method to explain a political situation we become so abstracted from a much more complex reality that we are able to make choices which appear black or white; right or wrong. When we start to sketch in the reality of situations like these we start to find the type of political greyness that give rise to all questions of morality and ethics in the first place. For example, if we consider that the human being of which we choose to torture is in fact innocent and has been wrongly accused and that she may lie in order to end the violence being inflicted upon her are we still confident that torture is ‘right’ and ‘reasonable’. The scenario is always misleading to the extent it paves over the complex political reality where these factors play a crucial part.

Secondly, the ticking bomb scenario is an attempt to establish a universal political circumstance where we can argue that the ethical thing to do is to torture. That, even as liberal democrats who otherwise avoid violence in political life, we are happy to follow this line of action and still feel content that we have acted within the guidelines of liberal morality. The issue with this is that the ticking bomb scenario is never universal; it is always politically biased and always to the loyalties of the West (we are the audience). The fact that London is the location and that the lives of innocents are at risk is not coincidental. Neither is the fact that the attack is an affront on ‘Western values’. We are immediately aware of which side we lie and we are silently coerced into believing the suspected attacker is immoral and wrong. For the scenario to be ethically universal we would be able to change the suspected perpetrators and victims to any particular group and it would still appear ‘right’ and ‘reasonable’. For example, if the situation was that the British Army was launching an Air Missile targeted at an area with a high concentration of Taliban members would we still agree that it is ethical for the Taliban to torture a British solider to release information in order to prevent the attack? If you are loyal to the British Army or anti-Taliban then I imagine there might be much more of a problem. The differentiation arises purely from the political loyalties we have. The ticking bomb scenario plays on our particular bias rather than providing a universal moral code of which would overcome particularity.

Alex Hall

YES

I pondered various avenues whilst contemplating how to demonstrate that torture in this situation is both appropriate and moral and thought I would start off with a trip down Sensationalist Hill. Whilst something of this substance is more likely to be found in such ——– [I have been edited]as the Daily Mail, it is unfortunately a fairly logical argument. Would you have tortured Mohammad Sidique Khan if you had captured him before London was attacked? Would you have made one man suffer for a few hours in an attempt to save lives? Or would you have sat squalidly in your ‘principles’ and allowed the innocent to perish? Four bombs detonated on the July 7 2005 killing 52 people. What would you have done if you had an opportunity to change the outcome?

Secondly I consider the famed Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. He has argued that torture should be legalised because in a ticking bomb scenario the government would undoubtedly use torture in order to save lives (even in the knowledge that it would then become subject to a lawsuit). Dershowitz argues that should we legalise torture, we can then ensure that it is carried out according to codes of practice, in as humane a process as is possible. For if torture is not legalised, then when governments are placed in a situation as has been given the terrorist will be subject to fairly horrendous methods of information extraction.

If torture is … used in an actual ticking bomb terrorist case, would it be normatively better or worse to have such torture regulated by some kind of warrant, with accountability, record-keeping, standards and limitations?

And Dershowitz is a liberal.

Of course the preceding paragraph doesn’t answer as to whether you should commit torture. It states that you would commit torture (if of course you are a government agent as per the scenario we have been given). So maybe I should return to whether it is moral or appropriate to commit torture in this specific example. Let’s start with what we have been told.

1) The plot was uncovered through the suspect (let’s call him ‘Abe’)
2) Abe is somehow affiliated with the plot and is in possession of information that would aid the investigation
3) Should the attack be successful many lives would be directly lost, the UK economy would suffer tremendously and the already-suffering world economy would feel the after-effects.
4) Abe is refusing to help the investigation

Thus we can affirm that Abe is quite happy to withhold information (that he definitely possesses) that could prevent a mass murder of innocent people. Do the numbers not tell us that he should most definitely be tortured, or am I barking up the completely wrong tree?

Tom Hashemi

Tagged Alexander Hall, Ethics, International Human Rights, Liberal, Tom Anderson, Torture

Share this post

MattFebruary 2, 2012 at 10:36 pmReply

Alexander,

A lot of strong points there, but is the fact that a real scenario would inevitably be far more grey than the one given reason enough to rule out torture altogether?

On the point of your Taliban scenario, would it not at least be logical for the Taliban to torture a British soldier to elicit information about British operations, perhaps saving Taliban lives and/or increasing our casualties? That isn't to say it would be moral, of course.

Tom,

Where does that numbers game lead us? If – for instance – our fictional officer we're trying to prevent the assassination of one person, how many terrorist suspects would it be acceptable to torture to save one innocent life?

Tom AndersonFebruary 3, 2012 at 4:29 pmReply

Is an innocent life worth more than a tarnished life? Or is all life equal?

LudoFebruary 5, 2012 at 4:24 pmReply

Who are we to judge the worth of lives? Is there anyone who has the right do so? Even if we could, can we really 'sum' lives and say that, for example, we are better off killing 1 person to save 300? Or even just 5 for that matter? Intuitively at first glance, yes.

But toward a more practical line of thought, no. Killing is, and will always be, immoral in the grand scheme of morality. In a more relative perspective of morality perhaps it can be deemed 'acceptable', such as in this case.

TomFebruary 5, 2012 at 6:14 pmReply

If you recommend that I not kill the 1 to save the 300, then you are similarly making a judgement on the value of life – are you not valuing the life of the 1 above the lives of the 300?

The argument is not that it makes murder (or torture in this case) morally sound, just that it is, as you say, acceptable, and as I say, morally superior. Too many commas.

MattFebruary 5, 2012 at 11:30 pmReply

So necessity modifies or overrides the morality question?

TomFebruary 5, 2012 at 11:42 pmReply

Do you disagree with the assertion that it is morally sound to save 300 lives by taking one life?

MattFebruary 6, 2012 at 11:53 amReply

I disagree with the assertion that torturing this one person will save those 300 lives. Assuming from the scenario, given his resistance thus far, that the guy is an intelligent, hardened operative, using torture is extremely unlikely to produce the information in time. Any interrogation where the subject resists requires a great deal of time so that information he does give up can be cross-checked. It takes weeks/months/years to 'break' someone in such a way as they give you useful information.

The question ought to be, would you torture someone when that torture is extremely unlikely to yield useful information?

TomFebruary 6, 2012 at 12:07 pmReply

But surely it is morally sound to *try* and extract this information? The suspect is involved in a plot to kill 300 people, surely by doing so he has negated any right to proper treatment? Yes, you should torture someone however unlikely it is that they will yield when faced with a situation as above.

(I should say that I disagree with the use of torture, but the argument that I often take hasn't come up yet – I honestly think that when looking at it from solely this angle it is correct to attempt to access required information through whatever means possible)

MattFebruary 6, 2012 at 12:33 pmReply

In the legal sense, of course he retains his right to proper treatment, but then legality ought to reflect morality so that doesn't dodge your question. I'll dodge it by asking what your objection to torture is.

AnonymousFebruary 6, 2012 at 1:00 pmReply

yes, what is the objection to torture. do you believe in morality? legality? then your silly. war is about life and death, nothing more or less.

TomFebruary 6, 2012 at 1:47 pmReply

I think it is safe to say that rather than protecting American interests, Guantanamo acted as a recruiting agent for extremism worldwide as it acted to support extremist claims that the West has no morals, that we torture and terrorize. That we are the offenders and not the Islamists. Apply the same logic to this scenario… If we torture then we are severely weakening our claims to be the moral leaders of the world and in doing so solidifying support for our ideological enemies. Thus torture, in the long-term, is always a bad idea.

AnonymousFebruary 6, 2012 at 2:10 pmReply

'If we torture then we are severely weakening our claims to be the moral leaders of the world…' you feel you/we have a right to this claim? that somehow our society, as a role model for all others, is given the right to judge? if you look to the future of western society with more intent you might see things a little differently.

TomFebruary 6, 2012 at 2:14 pmReply

Anonymous, would you mind choosing a pen-name… just in case someone else wades in on this as "anonymous"

TomFebruary 6, 2012 at 2:17 pmReply

It is irrelevant whether or not you or I think that we have a right to claim that we are the moral leader, the fact of the matter is that we do claim to be the moral leaders of the world. Thus in order to maintain that assertion – irrespective of its truthfulness – we must act in a manner deserving of such a claim. Committing torture does not do this.

thecountofmontecristoFebruary 6, 2012 at 2:28 pmReply

it is nor irrelevant whether you or i believe it – the point is that as you have already mentioned those 'ideological enemies' are already well aware of the hypocrisy of western moral terms; the only people we are/were trying to kid is ourselves, and for various reasons the joke has come to an end.

RobFebruary 6, 2012 at 2:36 pmReply

Torture can work. If it was my family on the line, I'd have the lads tongue on a platter regardless of the ethical and moral debate.

thecountofmontecristoFebruary 6, 2012 at 2:41 pmReply

unfortunately that's the truth of the matter – and one that is terribly misunderstood and misrepresented only in the west

TomFebruary 6, 2012 at 2:53 pmReply

@Montecristo I think it is clear that the United Kingdom is morally superior compared to states such as Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria… any and every Middle Eastern country.

That is not to say that we are perfect however.

TomFebruary 6, 2012 at 2:53 pmReply

@Rob Yes I think we all probably would, such is human nature.

thecountofmontecristoFebruary 6, 2012 at 3:20 pmReply

it is clear to someone from the west that we are morally superior. i think maybe if you asked people from a different background, they might think differently. because we have free speech, democracy, and the rule of law, does that mean we are a better society? do we have a higher level of cohesion and compassion? i think the uncertain grounds for judging the morality of a society are ones not be crossed by those in the west, if we're taking the last four centuries of imperialism as any guide.

TomFebruary 6, 2012 at 3:27 pmReply

Are you arguing that freedom of speech, democracy and the rule of law are bad things? You would prefer a authoritarian government that imprisoned political enemies without trial?

thecountofmontecristoFebruary 6, 2012 at 3:43 pmReply

what i'm arguing is that it is rather superficial to think that because we have certain institutions in place that we are somehow 'morally superior'; i think that would be better judged by the way we treat each other day to day. in fact, i would go so far as to say that many in the west have taken to the habit of allowing the institutions to take make the moral running, which allows them to act in whichever way they see fit within their own class constructs. certainly i would not enjoy any more than others living under an authoritarian government, but is it any better if we used to torture the natives instead of our own? that in some ways we still do, through economic exploitation? there are many rights and wrongs to this that cannot be explained neatly within a 'morally superior' western label.

RobFebruary 6, 2012 at 3:46 pmReply

"Morally superior"… lol. Sounds very colonialist. Someone have a white collar and a savior to go with that judgement call? ;)

TomFebruary 6, 2012 at 3:51 pmReply

haha seriously though, I challenge you to argue that there are any Middle Eastern states that act in a more ethical way that the United Kingdom does…

thecountofmontecristoFebruary 6, 2012 at 4:01 pmReply

middle eastern states are one thing, middle eastern people another. i challenge you to argue that somehow we in the west are morally superior, even with our institutions. so where have they got us? we are now seeing the dawn of a new era in that part of the world, and maybe once its a little more developed you will have the chance to rethink the idea that the west has a monopoly on morality. the middle eastern people have a tradition of civilization that makes ours look pathetic; the supremacy of western morality is a flash in the pan.

TomFebruary 6, 2012 at 4:13 pmReply

I have never stated or insinuated that Western populations are more moral than Middle Eastern populations. A good reason for that being that one half of my family would disown me if I did. The other reason being that I don't think its true.

What is true however is that Middle Eastern states do not act in as ethical a fashion as the UK does, which is what I have been arguing.

I have my reservations about the success of the Arab "spring", let's see what the situation is in 5-10 years time before we make a judgement on whether it's a 'new era'.

The Middle East has had periods of incredible cultural, economic and scientific growth, but to say that the supremacy of Western morality (I appreciate your recognition of my argument) is a 'flash in the pan' is incorrect.

thecountofmontecristoFebruary 6, 2012 at 4:26 pmReply

is it more important that you have states that act ethically or people who act morally?

do you think that the protests in this country, at this time, could ever match the sacrifices these people did and are making in the name of democracy and freedom? would you set yourself on fire? don't kid yourself, this means more to these people who have lived under tyranny than it ever will to you or i.

western international supremacy and its affiliate notions have lasted consistently and brutally for four hundred years, they have been based almost entirely on violence and exploitation, particularly outside of their own borders, and as a sideline they do a very good liberal job of covering their tracks. wmd's anyone?

yours might be a white man's burden, but ill graciously decline

TomFebruary 6, 2012 at 5:01 pmReply

No, I wouldn't set myself on fire. Why? Because I live in a democracy. Because I have freedom of speech. Because I live in a country that operates under the rule of law. I have no reason to set myself on fire. Why? Because I do not live in an unethical dictatorship.

I have not commented at all on morality among populations – it is completely irrelevant to this discussion – I have said that the United Kingdom is far more ethical in its actions that any other Middle Eastern government is. I don't see what relevance Western Imperialism has on a discussion to do with whether or not one should torture in a ticking bomb scenario.

As for your “white man's burden”… I could be fluorescent green for all you know

MattFebruary 6, 2012 at 5:11 pmReply

What's with presumed distinction between states and their people?

Also congrats to Tom for adopting his share of the white man's burden.

MattFebruary 6, 2012 at 5:32 pmReply

Isn't the superiority of the West's systems of government (imperfect as they are) amply demonstrated by the millions who vote with their feet and move here?

TomFebruary 6, 2012 at 5:37 pmReply

And yeah I definitely deserve a prize for having this white man's burden placed on my shoulders. Life just isn't fair. Neither are Middle Eastern states' electoral procedures.

MattFebruary 6, 2012 at 5:52 pmReply

thecountofmontecristo,

Could you explain what you think the Middle East will do better that the West in this new era? Will it be accompanied by mass immigration from the West to the Middle East?

thecountofmontecristoFebruary 7, 2012 at 9:05 amReply

ah, the little poodles snapping at my heels! what are these fine academic points your making here before me?

let me see…

1. that there's no connection between western 'ethical' government and 4 centuries of western imperialism and overseas aggression and invasion, and counting.

2. that there's no distinction between a people and their government

3. that the quality of a government is judged by those who immigrate to a country

maybe you want to do a little more reading around this subject eh? then come back with something a little more substantial

best wishes!

MattFebruary 7, 2012 at 10:46 amReply

thecountofmontecristo,

I don't think anyone made any of those points as you describe them.

Re #2, apologies if I was unclear. I did not mean "presumed" to be interpreted as "no". Briefly, all I meant was that the situation is rarely as clear cut as ethical population vs unethical government.

As for your #3, it is at the very least an indicator. For instance, prior to the Berlin Wall going up, far more Germans were moving west than east.

But Tom is right – we're moving away from whether or not to start torturing this guy.

thecountofmontecristoFebruary 7, 2012 at 11:14 amReply

'If we torture then we are severely weakening our claims to be the moral leaders of the world and in doing so solidifying support for our ideological enemies. Thus torture, in the long-term, is always a bad idea.'
give any clues?

thecountofmontecristoFebruary 7, 2012 at 11:14 amReply

is tom really right?

TassssFebruary 7, 2012 at 1:03 pmReply

Having read this article and all of your (please forgive me) comments that have completely gone off tangent from the article(you guys have a habit of doing this: P). Though, I don’t agree with torture, in this context, I would concede to agree with Tom's conclusion that torture in this scenario would be right thing to do. The evidence is clear, that 'Abe’ has information that could aid the investigation and potentially prevent an attack.

I do not agree with Matt that this is something that would take weeks/months. Once you discover information about a plot, and I would assume in this scenario, even though it has not been made clear, that the attack is going to take place very soon, and then you take the quickest and most appropriate course of action – even if a little torture would help you extract information and direct you to new evidence, then it is worth it. If the person is proven innocent, then that is a matter that the government will deal with as of when and, yes we will be accountable for our actions.

The most important element of this scenario is saving lives, and these are all INNOCENT lives that we are questioning the value of over the torture of ONE person who is affiliated with the plot in some way, and, therefore, by withholding information is committing a crime. So, yes on UK soil he has dismissed his privileges to proper treatment. Also, no one said whether the person being tortured died. If he/she did, then we would have a moral dilemma on our hands.

@thecountofmontecristo:

Yes, we are a better society, because we have free speech, democracy and the rule of law to regulate it all. I believe that in an open society like ours we have greater cohesion, compassion and understanding and thus, we are more inclined to question our morals and ethics on the basis of our liberal values by considering the rights of others, regardless of their race, religion, etc. Also, what does Western imperialism, economic exploitation have anything to do with this scenario??

Yes, torture in the long term is a bad idea, but who ever said that we would be using it in the long term? I believe it should be used when appropriate and that would depend on the intelligence officer's own moral judgement and on the basis of the level of evidence he/she has on a plot, crime etc, which in this case seems substantial.

thecountofmontecristoFebruary 7, 2012 at 1:28 pmReply

'we are a better society'

'we have greater cohesion, compassion and understanding'

do you really believe this? because we're better regulated this means we all act like saints, as compared to the heathens without these models of western virtue? joke

what does western imperialism and economic exploitation have to do with?

while your nice and comfy in your bourgeois idealism your invading another country and in the process not treating them with quite the same kid gloves. you think Iraqi or Afghani civilians were/are singing the praises of western society when the bombs are falling?

wake up

The Pink PantherFebruary 7, 2012 at 1:54 pmReply

What a moron.

TassssFebruary 7, 2012 at 2:16 pmReply

Yes, I do believe this. I would rather live in England, than under an authoritarian government elsewhere. I never said we act like saints… where are you making these assumptions from? Of course we are not perfect as a society. I said we are better regulated because our freedom of speech is still intact, but if we say something out of the ordinary, then many times, we are expected to answer for it, legally. If people abuse/threaten democracy in this country, then we have legislation in place to bring such individuals to account.

No, I don’t think Iraqi and Afghani civilians were singing praises, and I wouldn’t expect them to. The actions of governments do not always reflect the views of their citizens. A lot of people opposed the war in Iraq. Also, a lot of Iraqi civilians arrived in England soon after the war in Iraq began. They didn’t have to. Do you think they hate Western society so much that they came to live and prosper here?

@The Pink Panther: That is all you have to say? “What a moron” Very good comment indeed.

The Pink PantherFebruary 7, 2012 at 2:21 pmReply

@tassss

The Count's posts vexed me to such a point that I could not bring myself to utter anything more appropriate.

TassssFebruary 7, 2012 at 2:22 pmReply

@The Pink Panther:

I am sorry. I thought it was aimed at me!

thecountofmontecristoFebruary 7, 2012 at 2:37 pmReply

in the first paragraph you are espousing the virtues of the western governmental system and its mechanisms and how it helps us to become a 'better' society, and in the second you decry the fact that the government doesn't always reflect the views of the society it controls; you can't have it both ways.

i would rather live under a non-authoritarian government, but that doesn't mean they and/or they're citizens are any 'better', its just a different way of doing things. i do not believe in a 'better' society, how can you claim this if your truly a liberal?

i never said that the countries we have invaded 'hate' us, i said they weren't best pleased at the fact that we had gone to their country and were killing them. would you be if say another country decided to invade england and said that they thought it would be good for us to live another way?

why is it people in the west feel that they have somehow found the ideal way to live? that theirs is the only way, and everyone should follow suit, with or without force?

MattFebruary 7, 2012 at 2:42 pmReply

Tassss,

My understanding of the interrogation (enhanced or not) of AQ detainees is that, if they resist, it takes weeks/months to get them to a point where they will willingly give up useful info. Even then, that needs to be cross-referenced with other sources.

There's no reason to have faith in the Jack Bauer approach of speeding up that whole process by shooting everyone in the knees. All 'Abe' has to do is make up an address and the torture stops. If he's resisted all the mind games, etc, he'll know that too.

MattFebruary 7, 2012 at 2:48 pmReply

Haha brilliant. Apparently holding murderous dictatorships to be worse than democracies contradicts being liberal.

theriskyshift.comFebruary 7, 2012 at 2:57 pmReply

@thecountofmontecristo I was wondering if you would like to write an article based on your current arguments? I would be interested to see what response it gets from our readership.

TassssFebruary 7, 2012 at 3:04 pmReply

Sorry, what I meant to say was that a government's foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan does not always reflect the views of its citizens. It is the very same western governmental system that allowed people in the UK to oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also the western governments do not "control" society.

Yes, it is a different way of doing things, and in my opinion this different way of doing things is actually better. As you said in your recent posts, that someone from the Middle East might think that their way doing something is better. It's all about perception.

"killing them?" Wow! You make it sound like that was the sole aim of the Iraq and Afghanistan. The death of civilians is an unfortunate symptom of war and is inevitable. We try to avoid it as much as possible, but it happens. We are not forcing them to live another way. I did not agree with the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. Afghanistan cannot be changed. So many countries have tried. The Soviets tried to invade it with Communism and failed abysmally, and now the American situation looks bleak. So I guess the idea of making them live another way has not been THAT successful, and I hope we are learning our lesson.

I would not be pleased if another country decided to invade England but why would another country do that when a lot of countries are aspiring to a democracy and values like ours? Take the Arab uprising for example, these people have not been forced by anyone to live another way. They took to the streets themselves and demonstrated for the same values we hold in Western society. It does not make it a "Western Arab uprising". Values such as freedom of speech, democracy and equality are universal but are so wrongly misunderstood to be commonly associated with the West.

We have found the ideal way to live. The ideal way for the West that is, We cannot even begin speculate if this is going to work elsewhere. We are still following the developments of the Arab uprising as it happens. But the fact that many people are dying for these sorts of values just goes to show that it does work when done appropriately according to the situation.

thecountofmontecristoFebruary 7, 2012 at 3:15 pmReply

@theriskyshift.com

sure, im more than happy to share the love

TassssFebruary 7, 2012 at 3:15 pmReply

@Matt:

Well, then what do you suggest? Let 300 people die? The fact that this guy is withholding information which could be potentially critical to preventing the attack qualifies some form of short-term torture in my view. Or they could convince him to defect and join our side with protection. Yeah, he could give the wrong address, but he would still be detained until they cross-reference that information… and if it is wrong, well, he's in for a hard time again.

I guess we won’t know, we can only speculate possibilities of what and could be done.

TassssFebruary 7, 2012 at 3:21 pmReply

Oh thank God! Finally, this barrage can stop.

MattFebruary 7, 2012 at 3:23 pmReply

The question was, "Should you commit torture?" I'd say no – it almost certainly won't work, it opens the door for using it in less extreme circumstances and is a disaster politically.

Would I? Different question.

theriskyshift.comFebruary 7, 2012 at 3:24 pmReply

@thecountofmontecristo

Guideline word count of 600 (absolute maximum of 900), if you use information from other sites please include the weblink so we can hyperlink it through – make sure its obvious which information came from which site. And when you're done send it over to [email protected]. We will give it a look over and edit it – you will have a chance to read through it if we do make any changes.

Logical and coherent please! :)

TassssFebruary 7, 2012 at 3:43 pmReply

@Matt: You say it would be a diaster politically. But this essay is discusing the ethics behind torture in the UK. So am I allowed to assume that you think it is okay, ethically, in extreme circumstances such as the one we have in the essay, to use torture?

MattFebruary 7, 2012 at 3:48 pmReply

Tassss,

I'm distingushing between the ethical question (my answer is that it is wrong) and the human question (where many of us would get stuck in). It's the same if someone hurt a family member. Would it be ethically right to do illegal things to them? No. Would many of us do it anyway? Absolutely. But we should at least aspire to the ethical course.

TassssFebruary 7, 2012 at 4:04 pmReply

I agree. But what if aspiring to the ethical course means we lose 300 innocent lives? Surely, if taking the route of torture got us some answers and prevented the attack it would force us to reevaluate our ethics in the context of torture.

You are also right in your former comment about it being justified to be used in less extreme circumstances. It would go from purposes of extracting information to an exploration to see how far someone can be humiliated and degraded, whatever the outcome.

It is a moral and ethical dilemma and everyone has their own view on it. But if it ever became a reality people would begin to question their convictions. It's okay to have an opinion when you're not the one carrying out the act… but if you were the one who had a choice, in real life, then it's different matter…

Trenton AlbornozMay 4, 2013 at 7:42 amReply

The general meaning of ethics: rational, optimal (regarded as the best solution of the given options) and appropriate decision brought on the basis of common sense. This does not exclude the possibility of destruction if it is necessary and if it does not take place as the result of intentional malice.*`

Look at our website as well
<http://www.foodsupplementdigest.com/

56 Comments

MattFebruary 2, 2012 at 10:36 pmReply

Alexander,

A lot of strong points there, but is the fact that a real scenario would inevitably be far more grey than the one given reason enough to rule out torture altogether?

On the point of your Taliban scenario, would it not at least be logical for the Taliban to torture a British soldier to elicit information about British operations, perhaps saving Taliban lives and/or increasing our casualties? That isn't to say it would be moral, of course.

Tom,

Where does that numbers game lead us? If – for instance – our fictional officer we're trying to prevent the assassination of one person, how many terrorist suspects would it be acceptable to torture to save one innocent life?
Tom AndersonFebruary 3, 2012 at 4:29 pmReply

Is an innocent life worth more than a tarnished life? Or is all life equal?
LudoFebruary 5, 2012 at 4:24 pmReply

Who are we to judge the worth of lives? Is there anyone who has the right do so? Even if we could, can we really 'sum' lives and say that, for example, we are better off killing 1 person to save 300? Or even just 5 for that matter? Intuitively at first glance, yes.

But toward a more practical line of thought, no. Killing is, and will always be, immoral in the grand scheme of morality. In a more relative perspective of morality perhaps it can be deemed 'acceptable', such as in this case.
TomFebruary 5, 2012 at 6:14 pmReply

If you recommend that I not kill the 1 to save the 300, then you are similarly making a judgement on the value of life – are you not valuing the life of the 1 above the lives of the 300?

The argument is not that it makes murder (or torture in this case) morally sound, just that it is, as you say, acceptable, and as I say, morally superior. Too many commas.
MattFebruary 5, 2012 at 11:30 pmReply

So necessity modifies or overrides the morality question?
TomFebruary 5, 2012 at 11:42 pmReply

Do you disagree with the assertion that it is morally sound to save 300 lives by taking one life?
MattFebruary 6, 2012 at 11:53 amReply

I disagree with the assertion that torturing this one person will save those 300 lives. Assuming from the scenario, given his resistance thus far, that the guy is an intelligent, hardened operative, using torture is extremely unlikely to produce the information in time. Any interrogation where the subject resists requires a great deal of time so that information he does give up can be cross-checked. It takes weeks/months/years to 'break' someone in such a way as they give you useful information.

The question ought to be, would you torture someone when that torture is extremely unlikely to yield useful information?
TomFebruary 6, 2012 at 12:07 pmReply

But surely it is morally sound to *try* and extract this information? The suspect is involved in a plot to kill 300 people, surely by doing so he has negated any right to proper treatment? Yes, you should torture someone however unlikely it is that they will yield when faced with a situation as above.

(I should say that I disagree with the use of torture, but the argument that I often take hasn't come up yet – I honestly think that when looking at it from solely this angle it is correct to attempt to access required information through whatever means possible)
MattFebruary 6, 2012 at 12:33 pmReply

In the legal sense, of course he retains his right to proper treatment, but then legality ought to reflect morality so that doesn't dodge your question. I'll dodge it by asking what your objection to torture is.
AnonymousFebruary 6, 2012 at 1:00 pmReply

yes, what is the objection to torture. do you believe in morality? legality? then your silly. war is about life and death, nothing more or less.
TomFebruary 6, 2012 at 1:47 pmReply

I think it is safe to say that rather than protecting American interests, Guantanamo acted as a recruiting agent for extremism worldwide as it acted to support extremist claims that the West has no morals, that we torture and terrorize. That we are the offenders and not the Islamists. Apply the same logic to this scenario… If we torture then we are severely weakening our claims to be the moral leaders of the world and in doing so solidifying support for our ideological enemies. Thus torture, in the long-term, is always a bad idea.
AnonymousFebruary 6, 2012 at 2:10 pmReply

'If we torture then we are severely weakening our claims to be the moral leaders of the world…' you feel you/we have a right to this claim? that somehow our society, as a role model for all others, is given the right to judge? if you look to the future of western society with more intent you might see things a little differently.
TomFebruary 6, 2012 at 2:14 pmReply

Anonymous, would you mind choosing a pen-name… just in case someone else wades in on this as "anonymous"
TomFebruary 6, 2012 at 2:17 pmReply

It is irrelevant whether or not you or I think that we have a right to claim that we are the moral leader, the fact of the matter is that we do claim to be the moral leaders of the world. Thus in order to maintain that assertion – irrespective of its truthfulness – we must act in a manner deserving of such a claim. Committing torture does not do this.
thecountofmontecristoFebruary 6, 2012 at 2:28 pmReply

it is nor irrelevant whether you or i believe it – the point is that as you have already mentioned those 'ideological enemies' are already well aware of the hypocrisy of western moral terms; the only people we are/were trying to kid is ourselves, and for various reasons the joke has come to an end.
RobFebruary 6, 2012 at 2:36 pmReply

Torture can work. If it was my family on the line, I'd have the lads tongue on a platter regardless of the ethical and moral debate.
thecountofmontecristoFebruary 6, 2012 at 2:41 pmReply

unfortunately that's the truth of the matter – and one that is terribly misunderstood and misrepresented only in the west
TomFebruary 6, 2012 at 2:53 pmReply

@Montecristo I think it is clear that the United Kingdom is morally superior compared to states such as Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria… any and every Middle Eastern country.

That is not to say that we are perfect however.
TomFebruary 6, 2012 at 2:53 pmReply

@Rob Yes I think we all probably would, such is human nature.
thecountofmontecristoFebruary 6, 2012 at 3:20 pmReply

it is clear to someone from the west that we are morally superior. i think maybe if you asked people from a different background, they might think differently. because we have free speech, democracy, and the rule of law, does that mean we are a better society? do we have a higher level of cohesion and compassion? i think the uncertain grounds for judging the morality of a society are ones not be crossed by those in the west, if we're taking the last four centuries of imperialism as any guide.
TomFebruary 6, 2012 at 3:27 pmReply

Are you arguing that freedom of speech, democracy and the rule of law are bad things? You would prefer a authoritarian government that imprisoned political enemies without trial?
thecountofmontecristoFebruary 6, 2012 at 3:43 pmReply

what i'm arguing is that it is rather superficial to think that because we have certain institutions in place that we are somehow 'morally superior'; i think that would be better judged by the way we treat each other day to day. in fact, i would go so far as to say that many in the west have taken to the habit of allowing the institutions to take make the moral running, which allows them to act in whichever way they see fit within their own class constructs. certainly i would not enjoy any more than others living under an authoritarian government, but is it any better if we used to torture the natives instead of our own? that in some ways we still do, through economic exploitation? there are many rights and wrongs to this that cannot be explained neatly within a 'morally superior' western label.
RobFebruary 6, 2012 at 3:46 pmReply

"Morally superior"… lol. Sounds very colonialist. Someone have a white collar and a savior to go with that judgement call? ;)
TomFebruary 6, 2012 at 3:51 pmReply

haha seriously though, I challenge you to argue that there are any Middle Eastern states that act in a more ethical way that the United Kingdom does…
thecountofmontecristoFebruary 6, 2012 at 4:01 pmReply

middle eastern states are one thing, middle eastern people another. i challenge you to argue that somehow we in the west are morally superior, even with our institutions. so where have they got us? we are now seeing the dawn of a new era in that part of the world, and maybe once its a little more developed you will have the chance to rethink the idea that the west has a monopoly on morality. the middle eastern people have a tradition of civilization that makes ours look pathetic; the supremacy of western morality is a flash in the pan.
TomFebruary 6, 2012 at 4:13 pmReply

I have never stated or insinuated that Western populations are more moral than Middle Eastern populations. A good reason for that being that one half of my family would disown me if I did. The other reason being that I don't think its true.

What is true however is that Middle Eastern states do not act in as ethical a fashion as the UK does, which is what I have been arguing.

I have my reservations about the success of the Arab "spring", let's see what the situation is in 5-10 years time before we make a judgement on whether it's a 'new era'.

The Middle East has had periods of incredible cultural, economic and scientific growth, but to say that the supremacy of Western morality (I appreciate your recognition of my argument) is a 'flash in the pan' is incorrect.
thecountofmontecristoFebruary 6, 2012 at 4:26 pmReply

is it more important that you have states that act ethically or people who act morally?

do you think that the protests in this country, at this time, could ever match the sacrifices these people did and are making in the name of democracy and freedom? would you set yourself on fire? don't kid yourself, this means more to these people who have lived under tyranny than it ever will to you or i.

western international supremacy and its affiliate notions have lasted consistently and brutally for four hundred years, they have been based almost entirely on violence and exploitation, particularly outside of their own borders, and as a sideline they do a very good liberal job of covering their tracks. wmd's anyone?

yours might be a white man's burden, but ill graciously decline
TomFebruary 6, 2012 at 5:01 pmReply

No, I wouldn't set myself on fire. Why? Because I live in a democracy. Because I have freedom of speech. Because I live in a country that operates under the rule of law. I have no reason to set myself on fire. Why? Because I do not live in an unethical dictatorship.

I have not commented at all on morality among populations – it is completely irrelevant to this discussion – I have said that the United Kingdom is far more ethical in its actions that any other Middle Eastern government is. I don't see what relevance Western Imperialism has on a discussion to do with whether or not one should torture in a ticking bomb scenario.

As for your “white man's burden”… I could be fluorescent green for all you know
MattFebruary 6, 2012 at 5:11 pmReply

What's with presumed distinction between states and their people?

Also congrats to Tom for adopting his share of the white man's burden.
MattFebruary 6, 2012 at 5:32 pmReply

Isn't the superiority of the West's systems of government (imperfect as they are) amply demonstrated by the millions who vote with their feet and move here?
TomFebruary 6, 2012 at 5:37 pmReply

^^

And yeah I definitely deserve a prize for having this white man's burden placed on my shoulders. Life just isn't fair. Neither are Middle Eastern states' electoral procedures.
MattFebruary 6, 2012 at 5:52 pmReply

thecountofmontecristo,

Could you explain what you think the Middle East will do better that the West in this new era? Will it be accompanied by mass immigration from the West to the Middle East?
thecountofmontecristoFebruary 7, 2012 at 9:05 amReply

ah, the little poodles snapping at my heels! what are these fine academic points your making here before me?

let me see…

1. that there's no connection between western 'ethical' government and 4 centuries of western imperialism and overseas aggression and invasion, and counting.

2. that there's no distinction between a people and their government

3. that the quality of a government is judged by those who immigrate to a country

maybe you want to do a little more reading around this subject eh? then come back with something a little more substantial

best wishes!
MattFebruary 7, 2012 at 10:46 amReply

thecountofmontecristo,

I don't think anyone made any of those points as you describe them.

Re #2, apologies if I was unclear. I did not mean "presumed" to be interpreted as "no". Briefly, all I meant was that the situation is rarely as clear cut as ethical population vs unethical government.

As for your #3, it is at the very least an indicator. For instance, prior to the Berlin Wall going up, far more Germans were moving west than east.

But Tom is right – we're moving away from whether or not to start torturing this guy.
thecountofmontecristoFebruary 7, 2012 at 11:14 amReply

'If we torture then we are severely weakening our claims to be the moral leaders of the world and in doing so solidifying support for our ideological enemies. Thus torture, in the long-term, is always a bad idea.'
give any clues?
thecountofmontecristoFebruary 7, 2012 at 11:14 amReply

is tom really right?
TassssFebruary 7, 2012 at 1:03 pmReply

Having read this article and all of your (please forgive me) comments that have completely gone off tangent from the article(you guys have a habit of doing this: P). Though, I don’t agree with torture, in this context, I would concede to agree with Tom's conclusion that torture in this scenario would be right thing to do. The evidence is clear, that 'Abe’ has information that could aid the investigation and potentially prevent an attack.

I do not agree with Matt that this is something that would take weeks/months. Once you discover information about a plot, and I would assume in this scenario, even though it has not been made clear, that the attack is going to take place very soon, and then you take the quickest and most appropriate course of action – even if a little torture would help you extract information and direct you to new evidence, then it is worth it. If the person is proven innocent, then that is a matter that the government will deal with as of when and, yes we will be accountable for our actions.

The most important element of this scenario is saving lives, and these are all INNOCENT lives that we are questioning the value of over the torture of ONE person who is affiliated with the plot in some way, and, therefore, by withholding information is committing a crime. So, yes on UK soil he has dismissed his privileges to proper treatment. Also, no one said whether the person being tortured died. If he/she did, then we would have a moral dilemma on our hands.

@thecountofmontecristo:

Yes, we are a better society, because we have free speech, democracy and the rule of law to regulate it all. I believe that in an open society like ours we have greater cohesion, compassion and understanding and thus, we are more inclined to question our morals and ethics on the basis of our liberal values by considering the rights of others, regardless of their race, religion, etc. Also, what does Western imperialism, economic exploitation have anything to do with this scenario??

Yes, torture in the long term is a bad idea, but who ever said that we would be using it in the long term? I believe it should be used when appropriate and that would depend on the intelligence officer's own moral judgement and on the basis of the level of evidence he/she has on a plot, crime etc, which in this case seems substantial.
thecountofmontecristoFebruary 7, 2012 at 1:28 pmReply

'we are a better society'

'we have greater cohesion, compassion and understanding'

do you really believe this? because we're better regulated this means we all act like saints, as compared to the heathens without these models of western virtue? joke

what does western imperialism and economic exploitation have to do with?

while your nice and comfy in your bourgeois idealism your invading another country and in the process not treating them with quite the same kid gloves. you think Iraqi or Afghani civilians were/are singing the praises of western society when the bombs are falling?

wake up
The Pink PantherFebruary 7, 2012 at 1:54 pmReply

What a moron.
TassssFebruary 7, 2012 at 2:16 pmReply

Yes, I do believe this. I would rather live in England, than under an authoritarian government elsewhere. I never said we act like saints… where are you making these assumptions from? Of course we are not perfect as a society. I said we are better regulated because our freedom of speech is still intact, but if we say something out of the ordinary, then many times, we are expected to answer for it, legally. If people abuse/threaten democracy in this country, then we have legislation in place to bring such individuals to account.

No, I don’t think Iraqi and Afghani civilians were singing praises, and I wouldn’t expect them to. The actions of governments do not always reflect the views of their citizens. A lot of people opposed the war in Iraq. Also, a lot of Iraqi civilians arrived in England soon after the war in Iraq began. They didn’t have to. Do you think they hate Western society so much that they came to live and prosper here?

@The Pink Panther: That is all you have to say? “What a moron” Very good comment indeed.
The Pink PantherFebruary 7, 2012 at 2:21 pmReply

@tassss

The Count's posts vexed me to such a point that I could not bring myself to utter anything more appropriate.
TassssFebruary 7, 2012 at 2:22 pmReply

@The Pink Panther:

I am sorry. I thought it was aimed at me!
thecountofmontecristoFebruary 7, 2012 at 2:37 pmReply

in the first paragraph you are espousing the virtues of the western governmental system and its mechanisms and how it helps us to become a 'better' society, and in the second you decry the fact that the government doesn't always reflect the views of the society it controls; you can't have it both ways.

i would rather live under a non-authoritarian government, but that doesn't mean they and/or they're citizens are any 'better', its just a different way of doing things. i do not believe in a 'better' society, how can you claim this if your truly a liberal?

i never said that the countries we have invaded 'hate' us, i said they weren't best pleased at the fact that we had gone to their country and were killing them. would you be if say another country decided to invade england and said that they thought it would be good for us to live another way?

why is it people in the west feel that they have somehow found the ideal way to live? that theirs is the only way, and everyone should follow suit, with or without force?
MattFebruary 7, 2012 at 2:42 pmReply

Tassss,

My understanding of the interrogation (enhanced or not) of AQ detainees is that, if they resist, it takes weeks/months to get them to a point where they will willingly give up useful info. Even then, that needs to be cross-referenced with other sources.

There's no reason to have faith in the Jack Bauer approach of speeding up that whole process by shooting everyone in the knees. All 'Abe' has to do is make up an address and the torture stops. If he's resisted all the mind games, etc, he'll know that too.
MattFebruary 7, 2012 at 2:48 pmReply

Haha brilliant. Apparently holding murderous dictatorships to be worse than democracies contradicts being liberal.
theriskyshift.comFebruary 7, 2012 at 2:57 pmReply

@thecountofmontecristo I was wondering if you would like to write an article based on your current arguments? I would be interested to see what response it gets from our readership.
TassssFebruary 7, 2012 at 3:04 pmReply

Sorry, what I meant to say was that a government's foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan does not always reflect the views of its citizens. It is the very same western governmental system that allowed people in the UK to oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also the western governments do not "control" society.

Yes, it is a different way of doing things, and in my opinion this different way of doing things is actually better. As you said in your recent posts, that someone from the Middle East might think that their way doing something is better. It's all about perception.

"killing them?" Wow! You make it sound like that was the sole aim of the Iraq and Afghanistan. The death of civilians is an unfortunate symptom of war and is inevitable. We try to avoid it as much as possible, but it happens. We are not forcing them to live another way. I did not agree with the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. Afghanistan cannot be changed. So many countries have tried. The Soviets tried to invade it with Communism and failed abysmally, and now the American situation looks bleak. So I guess the idea of making them live another way has not been THAT successful, and I hope we are learning our lesson.

I would not be pleased if another country decided to invade England but why would another country do that when a lot of countries are aspiring to a democracy and values like ours? Take the Arab uprising for example, these people have not been forced by anyone to live another way. They took to the streets themselves and demonstrated for the same values we hold in Western society. It does not make it a "Western Arab uprising". Values such as freedom of speech, democracy and equality are universal but are so wrongly misunderstood to be commonly associated with the West.

We have found the ideal way to live. The ideal way for the West that is, We cannot even begin speculate if this is going to work elsewhere. We are still following the developments of the Arab uprising as it happens. But the fact that many people are dying for these sorts of values just goes to show that it does work when done appropriately according to the situation.
thecountofmontecristoFebruary 7, 2012 at 3:15 pmReply

@theriskyshift.com

sure, im more than happy to share the love
TassssFebruary 7, 2012 at 3:15 pmReply

@Matt:

Well, then what do you suggest? Let 300 people die? The fact that this guy is withholding information which could be potentially critical to preventing the attack qualifies some form of short-term torture in my view. Or they could convince him to defect and join our side with protection. Yeah, he could give the wrong address, but he would still be detained until they cross-reference that information… and if it is wrong, well, he's in for a hard time again.

I guess we won’t know, we can only speculate possibilities of what and could be done.
TassssFebruary 7, 2012 at 3:21 pmReply

Oh thank God! Finally, this barrage can stop.
MattFebruary 7, 2012 at 3:23 pmReply

The question was, "Should you commit torture?" I'd say no – it almost certainly won't work, it opens the door for using it in less extreme circumstances and is a disaster politically.

Would I? Different question.
theriskyshift.comFebruary 7, 2012 at 3:24 pmReply

@thecountofmontecristo

Guideline word count of 600 (absolute maximum of 900), if you use information from other sites please include the weblink so we can hyperlink it through – make sure its obvious which information came from which site. And when you're done send it over to [email protected]. We will give it a look over and edit it – you will have a chance to read through it if we do make any changes.

Logical and coherent please! :)
TassssFebruary 7, 2012 at 3:43 pmReply

@Matt: You say it would be a diaster politically. But this essay is discusing the ethics behind torture in the UK. So am I allowed to assume that you think it is okay, ethically, in extreme circumstances such as the one we have in the essay, to use torture?
MattFebruary 7, 2012 at 3:48 pmReply

Tassss,

I'm distingushing between the ethical question (my answer is that it is wrong) and the human question (where many of us would get stuck in). It's the same if someone hurt a family member. Would it be ethically right to do illegal things to them? No. Would many of us do it anyway? Absolutely. But we should at least aspire to the ethical course.
TassssFebruary 7, 2012 at 4:04 pmReply

I agree. But what if aspiring to the ethical course means we lose 300 innocent lives? Surely, if taking the route of torture got us some answers and prevented the attack it would force us to reevaluate our ethics in the context of torture.

You are also right in your former comment about it being justified to be used in less extreme circumstances. It would go from purposes of extracting information to an exploration to see how far someone can be humiliated and degraded, whatever the outcome.

It is a moral and ethical dilemma and everyone has their own view on it. But if it ever became a reality people would begin to question their convictions. It's okay to have an opinion when you're not the one carrying out the act… but if you were the one who had a choice, in real life, then it's different matter…
Trenton AlbornozMay 4, 2013 at 7:42 amReply

The general meaning of ethics: rational, optimal (regarded as the best solution of the given options) and appropriate decision brought on the basis of common sense. This does not exclude the possibility of destruction if it is necessary and if it does not take place as the result of intentional malice.*`

Look at our website as well
<http://www.foodsupplementdigest.com/