Torture and ethics: moral implications and philosophical perspectives

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 pressured and in agony, might not be thinking sufficiently clearly to be able to tell the truth.
Tortured persons might themselves begin believing the lies surrounding their lives to be true. 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 not stand torture as consequences have no bearing. Torture is morally and ethically incorrect from a societal standpoint, thus not considering the end outcome, this view is incorrect as well. According to deontological ethics, one must conform to societal expectations and responsibilities. As regards torture, one is duty- bound to protect the suspect’s rights. The outcome might save thousands of lives but the act is, nevertheless, morally and ethically incorrect. However, not many governments are deterred from it.
Scenarios wherein a threat is posed to several lives causes governments to fall back on all means that decrease risks and save those lives. Human life takes priority over ethics and morality (Souryal, 2007).
Utilitarianism View
Utilitarians regard torture to be justifiable as it leads to pleasure for most and pains only some. According to this standpoint, pleasure for most is considered ‘justice’, irrespective of the agony some may be subject to and to torture the adversary’s highly valuable targets and soldiers infringes no ethical/ moral standard.
Whether or not torture breaches fundamental human rights doesn’t concern utilitarians since the end outcome is happiness for most. The issue with utilitarianism is, it offers unrestricted access to other actions that are ethically incorrect. Torture is only unethical if done till a suspect succumbs and perishes, without having acquired the facts which would lead to happiness. Several blameless individuals might be tortured without any outcome; the utilitarian outlook thus becomes morally wrong. This viewpoint considers making people guinea pigs to achieve happiness for most morally right as well.
Punishing prisoners cruelly and using rare methods is morally right if it prevents crime from occurring in the future. Genocide is morally correct the majority’s happiness is hampered by the minority (Putra, 2015; Souryal, 2010).
Natural Law View
Natural law doesn’t justify torture as the act, rather than the outcome, form the foundation of wrong and right. Harming a fellow human being, no matter the reason, is, according to natural law, unethical and immoral. Human beings possess moral standards preventing them from behaving the way animals do – survival doesn’t require them to harm others. The strongest will come up with an alternative means for survival that doesn’t entail causing harm to other people.
Mankind aids one another in surviving instead of exploiting one another. All individuals are equally entitled to being free from suffering all kinds of persecution. Even the most evil criminal (who is undoubtedly guilty) is not to be meted out brutal, unusual punishment. This is actually a natural right, though the American Constitution recognizes it as a national right as well. Natural law deems employing all kinds of emotional, psychological or physical pain for seeking facts to be unethical torture. Society might accept harsh prison sentences, but doesn’t regard unusual punishment as acceptable (Putra, 2015).
Conclusion
Even in periods of war, American morality standards mustn’t stoop to the level of the adversary. After all, the nation boasts the world’s highest ethical and moral standards. Any form of torture is a bad idea which seldom brings about sufficiently great impacts to allow the means to be justified by the ends. All nations tolerating enemy torture will ultimately turn on their own people to suit their ends. Of the aforementioned ethical models, the utilitarian model alone considers torture to be justifiable. Mainstream US society does not, however, stick to the utilitarian viewpoint. The torture of highly valuable enemy targets or soldiers represents an infringement of moral standards in the US. Torturing must never be legally allowed since one can always find other alternatives which don’t end up violating morals, ethics, or human rights.










References
Evans, R. (2007), The Ethics of Torture, Human Rights and Human Welfare, Vol. 7, pp. 53-66.
Galvin, R. (2008). Legal Moralism and the US Supreme Court. Legal Theory, 14(2), 91-111.
Putra, B. A. (2015). US and the Lawless Age of ‘War on Terror’. Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Studies (ISSN: 2321–2799), 3(06).
Souryal, S. S. (2010). Ethics in criminal justice: In search of the truth. Routledge.