Argument Against Torture

Ever since the dawn of civilization, human beings have tortured one another for a variety of reasons. Some did it as punishment for perceived wrongdoings or crimes, others simply to send a message. Torture also has been used militarily, as a way to potentially extract useful information out of enemy soldiers. There have even been some who torture others merely for personal pleasure. Yet now, as we enter the 21st century, we somehow have the same attitudes towards torture as our ancestors thousands of years ago. Have we learned nothing from centuries of this barbaric act? Surely our modern minds can come to a conclusive perspective on torture. Proponents of torture argue that it could be necessary to save lives, yet critics respond that it is
Our Constitution is filled with mention of rights, yet do we all share the same understanding of what they are? For our purposes, rights should be taken to mean protections afforded to others by individuals agreeing to live in a cooperative and just society. For example, the right to free speech is a right the United States gives to its citizens, because most people consent that this right is something they wish to have, and therefore everyone should have it. The same goes for the right to life and liberty; these are abstract concepts that we bestow upon one another because, as a society, we have decided that we are better off with them than we are without them. To say something is a right is different from a privilege or a benefit. A right is something that is universally granted, equally, to everyone and under no circumstances should that right be restricted or limited. So what role do rights play in the conversation about torture? Clearly, torture violates an individual's right to liberty (e.g. they don’t consent to being tortured), life (often torture results in death), and, perhaps more controversial, cruel and unusual punishment (a right guaranteed by the United State Constitution). Simply by violating these inherent rights that all people have, regardless of circumstance, torture becomes ethically
Their justification for torture stems from this very concept: if more innocent lives can be saved, the torture of an individual is justified. Is this idea morally valid, that if many can be saved, a few should suffer? To answer this, we must consider the famous question “do the ends justify the means”? Most often, this question is met with a resounding yes; the ends (result) of saving innocent lives justifies the means (torture) used to get that result. Yet consider a slightly different scenario, in which the authorities detain sister or mother of the suspected terrorist. The detained woman could potentially have the same information (the location of the bomb) that the terrorist would, yet there is no way to be sure she has this information. Not only that, but it is entirely possible that this woman is completely innocent of any involvement, and knows nothing about the terrorists alleged activity. Most people would agree that torturing this woman is morally wrong, yet admitting this invalidates the principal of the “ends justifying the means”. In both cases torture could result in saving lives, yet clearly the means by which we arrive at those ends are not acceptable in the case of the woman. So why do we make a special case for the terrorist? Perhaps our inner feeling that the suspect is guilty