Historically, torture has been used as a way to punish perceived wrongdoers or to extract information from an enemy. This act is generally considered cruel and unusual by the common person, but throughout centuries of multiple cultures and civilizations it has remained an acceptable tactic even in today's world of supposedly "civilized" society. In order to answer the question of "Is torture justified?" we have to define what "justified" means and to whom it is justified. As history tends to be written by the victor, and the torturer must on some level believe he or she is justified, we might say that torture is always justified if carried out by the writers of history and never justified if carried out by their opponents. This, however, doesn't really answer the question of, "Was torture necessary?" for the victor might have won without torture. The Oxford Dictionary defines justified as: 1. Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason; 2. Theology declared or made righteous in the sight of God.
The first definition requires a subjective view of what is "good" to appraise whether something is justified. Torturing one enemy combatant and extracting the information that they might have could stop an attack. In such a scenario, the lives of many civilians or allied troops could be saved, which would in the eyes of most allies be a good thing. However, what if the prisoner doesn't actually have any information? In either case you're causing great pain to the prisoner's family and potentially recruiting them for the enemy's cause. The U.S. government captures and tortures an increasing number of supposed enemy combatants around the world, but most notably in the Middle East. The primary goals for this activity are to find supposed "terrorists" and to prevent future attacks against Americans. While at face value this seems like a noble cause - protecting American lives - there's no way of knowing beforehand if the person being tortured knows anything. Torture is notorious for providing bad intelligence, because a person who is being physically and psychologically damaged over a long period of time will say anything to make it stop. On top of that, if a military force starts plucking innocent civilians of foreign countries off the street and torturing them for the information they don't have, that military is essentially recruiting soldiers against their cause. While torturing an enemy could provide positive intelligence to save lives in an attack, it could also just be riling the nest for future conflict.
The second definition presupposes a belief in a specific religion. Many wars have been justified on theological grounds. The crusades are a prime example of leaders gathering their citizens to fight in the name of God. If this is a legitimate definition of justified torture then we would have to assume that everyone follows the same belief system. The fact is, many cultures worship different Gods and thus have substantially different beliefs whereas some cultures don't even believe in a God and thus they would say this definition doesn't apply. If torture is ever to be "justified" in this way it can only be justified in the eyes of the believers. Most everyone else would consider them wrong.
Can torture be justified? History always describes things in the eyes of the beholder. If the writer says it's so, then that is how it will be remembered. In the context of deciding whether modern torture is acceptable, we have to take in the reasons for and results of torture. Protecting lives is certainly a noble cause, but if it is at the price of destroying someone else's freedom is it worth it? Is one person's freedom worth more than another's? In addition, if the result of torture isn't saving lives but is instead enraging the enemy to further harm our allies it is hardly a just cause. On top of that, torture frequently provides incorrect information and is not the ideal tactic for gathering information. In terms of religion, if we don't all believe in the same theological doctrine we can't use religious beliefs as a way of defining what is just and what is not. Overall, the uncertainty and sheer inhumanity of torture is not conducive to any just cause.
Overall, I really liked your response, I thought you had some really interesting ideas such as the victor vs loser complex. I think for you it's worth pondering the meaning of 'necessary'. We both obviously agree that it is sometimes necessary if one has an agenda where that person has information you need to pursue that agenda....but is a choice isn't it? If something is necessary, you have to do it for your survival, for the continuation of life. Thus, torture looks a little bit less necessary in this light. Just think about it and get back to me.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the trickiest things about the torture debate that your post hints at is that we are only ever able to definitively say whether torture was justified in a particular circumstance AFTER the fact--after we know whether or not useful information was gained or lives were saved because of it. Thus, torture is always a speculative move, which makes the decision over whether or not to do it so wrought with psychological stress. It brings to mind the ridiculous (in my mind, and I'm pro-choice) question we often see in the abortion debate: if you could go back and have Hitler aborted, would you do it? Well, as they say, hindsight is always 20/20... and there's no such thing as a time machine. This was interesting to read!
ReplyDelete