Miller Torture Vs Torture

Within the subject of ethics, there are many concepts, arguments, and ways of life that are pretty straightforward, but ethics can dive into the very deep thoughts into the ways of life and how people should encounter some of the things life throws at us. Ethics might not have the answers to many problems; but based on some of the ethical theories, people can begin to think and ponder these problems. Torture is agreeably a touchy or disturbing subject for most and is shunned upon or seen as very unusual and taboo.
But why is this? The most obvious answer is because torture is the act of causing great pain to someone who can be any sort of prisoner of war, a captive, arrested criminal, ect. But torture can be even further defined to the very core of the problem. Two men wrote on the matter of torture and its justifications, and the definition it bears. David
Sussman begins by saying how torture “involves the intentional infliction of extreme physical pain or psychological distress on a person.” Sussman continues on about how torture actually leaves the victim emotionally scarred and even in a state of self-betrayal. The victim begins to lose their voice and body in a way that the torture begins to take over and the victim is left helplessly. The torturer is then able to get what they desire from their victim. (Sussman uses the cases of information) Seumas Miller also speaks of torture the same way. In the sense of interrogational torture, used to gain information from someone, using physical pain in order to “break” the captive of their will. Both parties also bring up a debated issue that ask: Is torture, morally speaking, worse than killing?
Or is killing worse than torture? Miller gives many examples of how torture and killing are the same morally. Miller expresses “both interrupt and render impossible the normal conduct of human life.” However Miller doesn’t believe that this is enough to say that one is worse than the other. But Miller also points out how tortured viction are ‘physically powerless’, and those who are dead have no power or autonomy. Concluding his statements, Miller comes to the reason that torture is not morally worse than killing… But in some cases, it can be morally worse. Sussman however, doesn’t necessarily see torture the same way. Ultimately, Sussman see torture equal to killing and the wrongness of them. Sussman also sees that torture has a special moral status. Sussman believes that torture has a special wrongness to it that we can somehow see but can’t explain. He theorizes that this is maybee why moral agents view torture as a greater evil or higher wrongness than death, even though they have close
similarities.
Sussman expresses his thoughts on how Utilitarians can perceive the negative effects of torture to try to get a closer understanding as to why we think torture is worse. about a Utilitarians and kantians view. Sussman speaks of how a Utilitarian can approach the problem of torture in a variety of ways that seem accountable. He explained how the Utilitarian can also see the lasting trauma torture has on its victims and the people close to them even after the torture has been stopped the but will always state back that the act of torture produces more plain than pleasure, the intensity and quantity of pain that is dealt. He states that the Utilitarian will have a hard time grasping the importance on how it affects the victim as a whole and “the moral significance of the social and intentional structure of the ‘drama’ that torture enacts.” Sussman speaks very highly of Kantian moral theory and how a kantian would approach the torture problem. However the Kantian would run into conflicts when looking into how and why torture is morally wrong based on feelings and “disruption of agency”. So while the Utilitarian might not grasp some aspects of torture, neither can the Kantian, thus stating a point that maybe the Utilitarian and Kantian aren't far off from each other than Sussman thinks there are, Utilitarians have a better understanding of some aspects of torture than a kantian and vice versa. Sussman’s account on how we can begin to understand the importance of torture could have some reinforcement if the Utilitarian views were viewed deeper.
Miller brings up utilitarian arguments when deciding when torture is justified. After proposing the two arguments of torture in regards to the car thief and the terrorist, Miller brings to attention what could become of the police officers that were present in both cases. In both cases, the officers are given the chance to torture the suspect in order to gain information that is extremely valued due to the fact that an innocent(s) of lives are at stake. In both cases, if the officers had tortured their suspects and this knowledge had been made public, they would be tried and found guilty regardless of the amount of lives saved. This view presents the same thought that J.J.C. Smart had presented in his “Utilitarianism and Justice” argument. No matter which option is picked, the officers would be held accountable for some sort of evil. In Miller’s arguments, the police can either be tried for the serious crime. If nothing is done, they are held accountable for thousands of deaths and their own. J.J.C smart presented a similar case but in slightly different context. Both cases however bring the attention of how a Utilitarian would approach said cases. In J.J.C Smart’s argument, the Utilitarian would turn the prisoner over to the angry mob. In Miller's case, the police that had Utilitarian views would risk their jobs as much as possible in order to prevent the deaths of thousands. Also presented in Smart’s case, the injustice choice is the lesser of the two evils and morality overcomes justice. Even Though morality is highly sought after, justice is expected to be maintained, especially by the law enforcement and injustice is never acceptable for those who swore to protect it.
The Utilitarian theory would probably be the better account in this argument. Even though in some arguments such as the car thief and the terrorist it might be unlawful or an act of injustice, risking a job and a career in order to save thousands of lives or even an infant life is enough for some rational people. Torture might have a special wrong to it that no one will know the answer to yet, but reading and reviewing Sussman’s and Miller’s pieces people can look at the situation of torture differently. This does not conclude by saying that torture is acceptable, but rather the ways of approaching an argument about torture with the Utilitarian theory in mind might make decision making based on the consequences of torture argument. The reason for Miller’s two examples to be a part of the lesser evil was due the amount of lives that were at stake. But not all torture cases are like this and is why the outcome should be considered.