Can Torture Ever Be Morally Justified? Essay Example
Question 4 Basing your arguments on the decision of the House of Lords in A(FC) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 71 and the article by W.L. Twining and P.E. Twining ‘Bentham on Torture’ at vol. 24 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 305, what is morally wrong with torture? Can it ever be morally justified? If so, when? If not, why not?
Torture is not a popular practice amongst any developed society. To some, it is an extremely emotive word, the mere utterance of which brings to mind feelings of disgust and hatred towards those who might even think of employing torture, for whatever purpose. However, perhaps these people are too quick to dismiss torture without really thinking about it. For all that is wrong with torture, there may be justified uses for it. Though such a situation which gives rise to acceptable torture is an extreme rarity, it could be a mistake to simply prohibit the use of torture absolutely. One could regret such a decision when the time comes that torture is not just acceptable, but necessary, for a greater good. This will be considered in much greater depth later on in the essay.
To give clarity to the argument, it shall be split into three sections followed by a conclusion. First it will be necessary to define the word ‘torture’. It is a notably broad term so some limits insofar as its use within this essay is concerned will be required. Secondly I will address the question of what is morally wrong with torture. It is hard to deny that nearly everything about torture is morally objectionable. However, as I will attempt to argue in the third part of the essay, there are times when torture could be morally justified. Some examples will be given to help illustrate these situations. A short conclusion will follow. Throughout the essay, references will be made to the judgment of the House of Lords in A(FC) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 71, W.L. Twining and P.E. Twining’s article ‘Bentham
Torture is not a popular practice amongst any developed society. To some, it is an extremely emotive word, the mere utterance of which brings to mind feelings of disgust and hatred towards those who might even think of employing torture, for whatever purpose. However, perhaps these people are too quick to dismiss torture without really thinking about it. For all that is wrong with torture, there may be justified uses for it. Though such a situation which gives rise to acceptable torture is an extreme rarity, it could be a mistake to simply prohibit the use of torture absolutely. One could regret such a decision when the time comes that torture is not just acceptable, but necessary, for a greater good. This will be considered in much greater depth later on in the essay.
To give clarity to the argument, it shall be split into three sections followed by a conclusion. First it will be necessary to define the word ‘torture’. It is a notably broad term so some limits insofar as its use within this essay is concerned will be required. Secondly I will address the question of what is morally wrong with torture. It is hard to deny that nearly everything about torture is morally objectionable. However, as I will attempt to argue in the third part of the essay, there are times when torture could be morally justified. Some examples will be given to help illustrate these situations. A short conclusion will follow. Throughout the essay, references will be made to the judgment of the House of Lords in A(FC) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 71, W.L. Twining and P.E. Twining’s article ‘Bentham