When Is Torture Morally Justifiable? A Consequentialist View
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.
- Introduction: Defining Torture and the Moral Question: Defines torture and states paper's thesis
- Consequentialism vs. Deontology in Extreme Situations: Contrasts ethical frameworks applied to torture
- The Stolen Car Scenario: A Real-World Case for Justified Torture: Stolen car case supports consequentialist justification
- The Ticking Time Bomb: Torture as Moral Necessity: Ticking bomb scenario and terrorist culpability
- Conclusion: When Lofty Ideals Fail Practical Morality: Practical morality overrides abstract ethical ideals
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its argument in a clear, sourced definition of torture before building its moral case, giving the analysis a firm conceptual foundation.
- It uses two concrete scenarios — a stolen car with a child inside and a ticking time bomb — to make abstract ethical principles tangible and emotionally immediate.
- It acknowledges the opposing legal and deontological positions fairly before explaining why consequentialist reasoning overrides them in extreme cases.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied ethical reasoning through scenario-based argumentation. Rather than abstract theorizing, it tests competing ethical frameworks — deontology and consequentialism — against vivid real-world and hypothetical situations, allowing the reader to evaluate which framework produces more defensible outcomes. This is a standard technique in applied ethics writing and models how to use thought experiments as philosophical evidence.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a definition and a statement of intent. It then presents the first scenario (stolen car) to introduce the consequentialist-vs.-deontological tension, cites relevant law to acknowledge the opposing position, and argues for why consequentialism wins. It escalates to the more dramatic ticking time bomb scenario, using Miller's framework to explain why the terrorist's culpability changes the moral calculus. A brief conclusion synthesizes both examples into a broader claim about the limits of idealistic moral principles.
Introduction: Defining Torture and the Moral Question
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.
References
Miller, S. (2005). Is torture ever morally justifiable? Retrieved from csusb.edu:
Newsherald.com. (2013, January). The use of torture can never be justified. Retrieved from newsherald.com:
stanford.edu. (2014). Deontology's foil: Consequentialism. Retrieved from stanford.edu: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.