This paper examines whether torture can ever be morally justified, drawing on consequentialist ethical theory to challenge the absolutist position that torture is always wrong. After defining torture as the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering to break a person's will, the paper presents two central scenarios: a child trapped in a stolen car and the classic "ticking time bomb" thought experiment. Using Seumas Miller's philosophical analysis, the paper argues that in certain extreme circumstances — where innocent lives hang in the balance and no other option is available — torture is not merely permissible but morally correct. The paper contrasts this view with deontological ethics and U.S. law, ultimately contending that practical moral imperatives can override abstract ideals.
Given the events of the last decade — most notably U.S. military techniques at Abu Ghraib — the subject of torture remains both popular and deeply controversial. For the purposes of this paper, torture is defined as "the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless, other person for the purpose of breaking their will. I note that a person might have been tortured, even if in fact their will has not been broken; the purpose of the practice of torture is to break the victim's will, but this purpose does not have to be realized for a process to be an instance of torture" (Miller, 2005).
Torture is antithetical to everything a civilized and peaceful society stands for. It is not something palatable, nor does it seem consistent with the actions of an evolved and just collective of people. Nevertheless, this paper intends to demonstrate that there are certain instances and moral constructs which can justify torture.
According to deontological ethics, acts must be evaluated on their own moral terms, independent of their consequences. Under this framework, torture cannot be justified regardless of the outcome, because it violates an absolute moral rule against harming defenseless persons. This view is reinforced by existing law: "The U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 even prescribes the death penalty for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions (torture included). Even if someone's perverted system of morality deems torture to be permissible, it is plainly illegal in the United States and in virtually any country on the planet. Any minimal commitment to the rule of law requires us to renounce torture" (Newsherald.com, 2013).
By contrast, consequentialist ethical theory holds that the morality of an action is determined by its outcomes. Under this framework, an action that prevents a greater harm — even if that action is itself harmful — can be morally justified. When the stakes involve the lives of innocent people, consequentialism provides a compelling counterweight to deontological absolutes.
Consider the following example: a car is stolen with a child in the backseat. The thief abandons the car and flees. The police apprehend the thief, but he denies having stolen the car and claims to have no idea where it is. Meanwhile, the child is trapped in a hot car, becoming dehydrated, with his life in serious danger. Reasoning, threatening, and pleading with the criminal produce no results. The criminal continues to deny the theft and demonstrates nothing but contempt for the police.
In this incident, what ultimately happened was that the police administered blows to the criminal, making it clear the beating would not stop until he provided the vehicle's location so the child could be recovered. According to deontological ethics, this action is not justifiable. According to U.S. law, the officers broke the law. However, according to consequentialist ethics, the officers did the right thing. They recognized that in this case, the greater good revolved around saving the life of the child — an outcome that was both urgent and paramount. While lofty moral principles are important ideals for society to aspire to, there are more pressing moral imperatives at work when an innocent child's life is at stake. In that sense, these officers acted with speed and decisiveness, and one could argue they were actually courageous in the action they chose.
"Ticking bomb scenario and terrorist culpability"
Ultimately, there are several instances when torture is not just morally justifiable, but morally correct. In the cases outlined in this paper, torture is often the most defensible option available. It is frequently the only action capable of preventing the murder of numerous individuals or their reckless endangerment. These examples illustrate that while lofty moral virtues are valuable ideals for society to uphold, they are often impractical and offer little guidance in urgent, real-world situations. When applied ethics demands a choice between abstract principles and the immediate preservation of innocent life, the latter must take precedence.
You’re 64% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.