Torture and Ethics
Human torture has forever been and will remain ethically incorrect, wicked, unfair, and inappropriate. According to free- world ethicality standards, torture of the adversary’s highly valuable entities or soldiers is unacceptable. Besides infringing international regulation that opposes these practices, human torture constitutes a violation of fundamental human rights. It is a kind of brutal, rare punishment by all standards notwithstanding outcome. Torturing a person can be justified only if it helps save several other lives; nevertheless, it still remains wrong and immoral. Utilitarians alone consider torture to be ethically acceptable (Putra, 2015). The above perspective belongs to the world’s dark ages and must remain there. It doesn’t exemplify current moral standards. Some persons support the notion of torture to one for protecting many. However, one issue with it is, one cannot guarantee end outcomes (Galvin, 2008). Extreme measures force people to spill their secrets and do anything to put an end to their pain.
A torturer’s ethical standards fall to the level of their opponent and the long- term outcome of this act is, the opponent grows stronger and is galvanized further to accomplish their goal (Evans, 2007). Enemy soldiers contemplating passing on information will be deterred by the potential of getting tortured by their opponent. While other nations have indeed tortured US soldiers in the past, prisoners of war in the future could be treated worse with opponent knowledge of their own prisoners experiencing torture. Employing brutal, atypical punishments when interrogating individuals infringes human rights, rendering all proofs garnered in the process unusable at court. Criminal justice and governmental systems need to themselves abide by the law before expecting abidance on society’s part. The law is equally applicable to all US citizens and inhabitants (Evans, 2007). Bribe, deception and reasoning with an enemy proves more effective as compared to torture. Torture victims, when...
Frequently, only threatening torture to the individual him/ herself or to family members will suffice when it comes to garnering their cooperation. Modern technology renders torture an unneeded, out- of- date thing. The government may be able to conveniently gather sufficient evidence for making suspects believe they might be subject to torture, or to believe one of their loved ones has been captured and taken into custody. Law enforcement organizations are always employing deceptive tactics for making suspects err or spill the beans whilst steering clear of ethically incorrect, violent acts (Galvin, 2008). The outcome is more accurate as compared to torture, with the added advantage of no harm caused to the individual. Deeming torture to be the last resort when every other attempt has failed is a decision for authorities charged with conducting interrogations, in adherence to the law. Irrespective of the outcome, committing torture is invariably ethically and morally incorrect.
Ontological View
Torture is unjustifiable to ontological theory advocates as harming others is wrong, irrespective of outcome. The principle of freewill enables individuals to distinguish wrong from right and decide on what information to share.
Coercing individuals into divulging facts or lying is, from an ontological standpoint, morally incorrect. However, even this view doesn’t, on occasion, keep individuals from knowingly committing the wrongful act of torturing others to fulfil their goal. For instance, it may be expected of a father to torture the kidnapper of his child for having him/her safely returned, though this doesn’t mean the act is ethically or morally correct. However, this situation wouldn’t garner societal censure (Souryal, 2010).
Deontological View
The deontological perspective does…
