Study Notes on 'Torture Is Always Wrong' by Ben Juratowitch
Introduction to the Torture Debate
Moral Justifiability of Torture: Continual debate surrounding whether torture can be justified.
Ticking Bomb Scenario: A common hypothetical example where a terrorist has planted a bomb and can only be tortured to discover its location.
Advocates of torture argue that extreme situations could warrant such measures.
Arguments Against Torture
Inevitability of Abuse: Arguments suggest that allowing torture creates a power that will inevitably be misused.
Moral Disconnect: Even if torture is theoretically justified, it is prohibited in practice, suggesting a need to re-examine its intrinsic moral implications.
Torture and Consequentialism
Right to be Free from Torture: Rather than justifying torture through outcomes, it should be framed in regards to a fundamental right against it.
Moral Obligation: The paper posits that torture is inherently wrong and this right is never defeasible, even in desperate circumstances.
Assumptions in Hypothetical Scenarios
Ideal Circumstances: Hypothetical assumptions include minimal harm beyond torture's threshold, the certainty that torture will yield reliable information, and a society not inclined to torture.
Motivations for Justifying Torture: Some argue that saving many lives through torture could justify its use.
Ethical Considerations and Thought Experiments
Torturing Innocents: Introduces an extreme thought experiment of torturing a baby to extract information from a terrorist mother, questioning the limits of consequentialism.
State Responsibility: The state would be responsible for any harm it inflicts through torture, emphasizing the moral ramifications of such actions versus terrorist acts.
Consequentialism Critique
Distinction Between Outcomes: Challenges the idea that state-induced harm is justified if it averts greater disasters and suggests that the state cannot morally cause harm.
Moral Responsibility: An omission that causes harm must be morally permissible to be justifiable; thus, torture, being impermissible, creates a moral paradox.
Limitations of Consequentialist Logic
Greater Good vs. Individual Rights: Questions why pure outcomes should dictate moral decisions and contends that fundamental human rights should constrain moral calculations.
Public Response to Torture: Society’s intuition against torturing innocents reflects deeper moral beliefs contrary to strict consequentialism.
Guilt and Justification for Torture
Forfeiture of Rights: Discusses the idea that a guilty individual may forfeit their right against torture, but argues that this still does not inherently justify torture.
Retributive Perspectives: Legal arguments emerge suggesting torture as a form of punishment for creating danger to others, moving towards retributive ethics.
Arguments Against Conditional Torture
Preventative Ethics: Suggests that allowing conditional torture leads to morally hazardous situations such as justifying torture under exceptional cases.
Consequentialist Outcomes: Even if torture is legally prohibited, the hypothetical scenarios outline risks in permitting torture for morally justifiable reasons.
Torture as an Inherent Wrong
State Responsibility: The act of torture disregards individual dignity, autonomy, and humanity.
Consequentialist Failure: The effectiveness of torture should not be a metric for justification since it does not respect essential human rights.
Moral Comparison: Torture cannot enter moral discussions where human dignity is concerned, as it undermines individuals' rights.
Conclusion: Absolute Prohibition of Torture
Rights to Be Free from Torture: Asserts that there exists an absolute right to be free from torture that is non-defeasible.
Relationships to Other Issues: While historical instances show the risks inherent in torture, torturous practices remain fundamentally incompatible with state duties.
Ultimate Moral Stance: Emphasizes torture is always wrong; thus, it should never occur under any pretext.