Ethics

There has been a gread deal of debate in the news, of late, as to the application of torture under a so-called 'ticking time bomb' scenario. Is physical or mental torture ever justified in such an extreme event in a moral society?

Comments

Some moral philosophers think that absolutely nothing can justify torture, and for them torture is unacceptable whatever the consequences. To argue with them it would be no good pointing out the consequences of not torturing, for the consequences are irrelevant. One would have to show them that consequences do matter in moral reasoning.

For other philosophers a calculation of alternatives would be relevant, the costs and benefits would have to be considered and the right course of action derived from the result. For them it is a technical issue to be decided on the merits of each individual case, while for many absolutists torture can be absolutely ruled out.

I find myself impatient with such questions. There may be a theoreticalinterest to them, but in practice I find they often have the effect ofparalyzing action that we know to be right. (And is one being overly suspicious to wonder whether they are sometimes offered with precisely such intentions?) I expect that most oralmost all instances of torture fail to take place in anything like the "ticking bomb"context; most, perhaps all, torture that's actually practiced is absolutelyand unmitigatedly wrong. And our conviction that these instances of torture are wrongshould not be weakened by our realization that we cannot decide whethertorture might ever justified or, if we think it might be, whereprecisely to draw the line.

Read another response by Oliver Leaman, Alexander George

Read another response about Ethics