Philosophy Of Torture Essay

Defining Torture Torture is any act where severe pain and suffering which is either mental or physical is intentionally inflicted into a person for the purpose of obtaining from him confession or information, by punishing him for the act he or third person is suspected of committing or has committed. It can also be intimidating or forcing him for the reason which is based on discrimination when such suffering is inflicted with consent of or at the instigation of public official or another person who is working in an official capacity. This excludes pain and suffering from incidental or lawful sanctions. In state sponsored torture, groups or individuals inflict torture on one another; in this case, torture is for the motive of sadistic gratification of torturer. There is prohibition of torture under international law and in domestic law in most countries. Amnesty international says that, in world governments, 75% of them currently practice torture. In history, torture has been used to effect political re-education. 21 century considers torture as violation of human rights and is unacceptable to the United Nations article 5. Torture and ill treatments are considered to be immoral by the international legal prohibitions. Torture is ordinarily and accidental discomfort for example, it is torture to be stuck in traffic jam for five hours. The paradox o torture is used where the methods used to inflict pain and humiliations are similar. For example, in games, players endure torturous discipline. This is also true with genitorture which is used in virtual parody because the real things have medical risks that are unacceptable. (Miller, 2006). Doctrine of Double Effect With Respect To Torture In doctrine of double effect, we encounter conflicts of right whereby there is right for a person not to be tortured and right to life and to be secure. The rights set limit to calculations of utilitarian override benefits of utilitarian but the rights themselves can conflict. Question arises as to whether there are some rights which are more basic compared to others, because of being more important to human life. Perhaps, right to liberty is taken to be more important than right to property and right to life more important than right to liberty. Right to life is the most basic right and is a precondition for existence of any other right. Some rights should never be overridden because they are basic. This can help in resolving possible conflicts. There is a contrast in killing an innocent person with the killing of someone in self defense. If someone threatens my life, he has already forfeited his right to life, if I can defend my own life by killing him, then I can do so. Therefore, if there is absolute right to life for an innocent person, it is wrong to kill him except in self defense. If a driver has five people working on his right hand track, and one person on the left hand track. If a tram is steered on left hand track, it would kill one person and if nothing is done, tram will kill five people. The question is as to whether he should steer on the left hand track and kill one person in order to save five people on the left hand track. The doctrine of double effect does not say it is okay to people who are innocent if you don’t intend it. It says that, it is right to do an action that result to unintended death of people who are innocent as the only way of preventing worse evil from happening. This means there is conflict between negative duty and negative duty, in this case, it is right to kill fewer than many. (Miller, 2006) argues that, there exists a moral difference between killing someone and allowing him to die. Some doctors can perform involuntary euthanasia in order to provide organ transplant. The overall benefit produced may be the greatest but the doctors can not just do that to people. Negative duties always correspond to negative right. For example right not to be killed. Positive ideas correspond to positive rights. For example right to give aid to save someone’s life. Duties that are negative are stricter than positive duties. For example, it is our duty to prevent deaths but it is not strict like duty not to kill. Failing to help people who are starving is bad but it is worse if you give them poisoned food. The terrorists announce that, they will use weapons to kill a city unless a young lawyer who is politically active kills his mother. The gang has already murdered several people and their threat is credible. The question is as to whether the lawyer is supposed to torture his mother up to death for him to prevent the terrorist attack. According to doctrine of double effect, if the lawyer does not torture his mother to death, he is not responsible for the murdered people because, terrorists are the ones responsible. The lawyer should not torture his mother to death because; this will encourage the terrorists to make similar threats later. What Is Wrong With Torture Torture inflicts pain that is unspeakable into the body of fellow human being who is at our mercy. A person who is tortured is helpless and bound. The person who is torturing stands before the person to be tortured with instruments. The question of unilateral disarmament is not there because the victim has no arms, even no use of two arms he was born with. Torture results to inequality because killing and abusing a person is as radical and denial of humanity. Torture is widespread, rationalized and sanctioned in memorandum that is long and is written by people who serve in high government authorities. It is easy to ratify this record through voting in order to confirm the chief authors in highest legal office in executive arm of government. Torture causes destruction to the soul and destroys body of the victim. There is boundary between humane treatment in prisons and the clear boundary is torture that exist between civilization and barbarism. Torture threatens the safety of someone’s family and inflicts suffering on the family in front of that person. Torture makes someone care for nothing other than the cessation of suffering. It breaks autonomy of someone by manipulating them in a manner that is dehumanizing. The cruel treatment is bad enough and is like slavery and lacks respect to someone’s humanity. Torture demoralizes someone and makes the tortured become anxious to spear out what tormentors would like to hear. He will be willing to remove the pressure by saying anything. Torture makes it easy to extract a confession of guilt through being ruthless that makes the innocent give in quickly. The process of dehumanization quickly obliterates the distinction between falsity and truth. All what will matter is what stop the torture. Torture make people who are tortured desire to end suffering, as a result, they can say anything and therefore they can not be taken to be truthful. This is opinion of many observers who are involved in interrogations. Torture results to flattering one another where senators showered each other with compliments, senator Hatch said that senator specter who is new judiciary chairman is the best lawyer who has ever served in senate of United States. This was agreed upon by Senator Biden who called Senator Specter, the finest lawyer of constitution in the country. This was laughter because; it is not in the country but in the senate. Torture hurts the image of United States to the whole world according to Senator Lindsey Graham. When United States wins the hearts and minds of the Arab world, this will be important for them to succeed in the world of terror. There are photographs that hurt their efforts. Gonzales refused every opportunity for repudiating the policies that brought about torture, it was agreed that, the person who was responsible for harming United States image is Abu Ghraib. This means that torture is unacceptable. (Miller, 2006). Dynamics of Torture According to united nation convention against torture, when people imagine torture, what they imagine is they being the victim. Perpetrator is seen as a sadist, diabolical in manner, someone inhuman, most likely male, foreign in accent and uncivilized. Yet the available evidence shows that, most of the torturers are normal people. We could be barbarians of our dreams as easy as we become victim. Many perpetrators take torture as a job and nothing more. In notorious case of police brutality, a prisoner was burned with a radiator and a cigarette; he then suffocated after the plastic bag was put over his head by police officers. His fingers, nose, ears and genitals were electro shocked. Goldstone argues that, the described type of abuse was not in any way limited to the usual beatings but went to esoteric areas such as planned torture and psychological techniques. Other members in the command were aware of systematic abuse and they actively participated in the same or failed to put that action to an end.   In torture of the republican sympathizers, Ordinary people become torturers and feel that society condone and protect the abuse and know who the victims are how their response to torture is and how citizens are bystanders who have the knowledge of what is happening and can never act. In totalitarian states, the appearance of torture in United States is thought to be free from that kind of thing. Many people want various places to be visited that are known to use torture; many people think torture is done in some backward civilization by ignorant and barely human people. But torture is something that everyone is capable of doing. Complicated perception of torture gives room for moments of identification with perpetrators and does not loose sight of moral center. There are two separate incidents of Israel raids into Palestine and questioning of the murder suspect in Chicago. Credible details were examined by policemen and torture was acknowledged as being necessary by the authority and was carried out methodically by policemen and soldiers. The torturers said that, extraordinary evil becomes an act which is casual to the torture when combination of personal frustrations and official duties are achieved. Any person can become torturer if he has the right opportunity, most torturers are bewildered by what has been done and their reluctance to accept full personal responsibility and how those seem to realize futility and inhumanity of the acts they have done. The important thing about unspeakable acts ordinary people is not in the unspeakable nature of neither act nor people ordinariness but the way people admit the torture fails to produce desired effects. The fact of torture being done and will continue to be performed despite available reasons is an argument which is very powerful. (Conroy, 2001) Torture for a Political Purpose Torture is used for political reasons, it is enforced through the policy of state and means of law administers it. It raises problems to people in the whole world and gives and indication of new responsibility. It is part of long struggle of mankind out of the shape of civilization that gives permission to full flowering of human rights. The state uses its powers to torture through the capacity it has to incarcerate and its monopoly on force. There are long campaigns of agitation that produce restraints which curtail them eventually. (Levinsion, 2004). The torture of prisoners under saddam Hussein was widespread and ended in death. This is also true with dozens of other regimes all over the world because torture is torture. It puts permanent scars in the victim even if reasonable marks are not seen in the body and other scars are left in the lives of those who perform it and those who allowed and encouraged it and these scars last for a long time. In Zimbabwe, independent journalists work under severe restrictions on whatever they report; those who criticized Mugabe in their article or offend the government are subject to arrest, imprisonment and are unofficially subject to torture. Every time a story is written, a journalist is likely to be arrested according to the words he used. Those words that do not please the government are not taken lightly and can result to arrest of the journalist. The European said, pressure against Mugabe would be increased if elections were stolen but have not done so because, there is a feeling that Zimbabwe crisis goes beyond responding to the diplomatic pressure. The united nation seems to be blind to the crisis, Security Council and human rights spoken and acted out against Mugabe’s tyranny. After Reeler requested human rights commission to help, they noted there were more killings in Gaza than Zimbabwe. Torture is used in punishment of prisoners. Prisoners in the United States are routinely treated as animals, they are brutalized and degraded. There are very few Americans who have raised their voices in the opposition to the shameful prison policies due to the inmates being viewed as being less than human. Torture is a vile and the dignity and right of individual is depraved, it is crime against humanity with no possible justification due to need to obtain information from a terrorist or a prisoner. It is sad because, in such instances, torture is inexcusable and overshadowed by due to the fact that it is regarded a punishment. (Miller, 2006) Social Context and Ethics of Torture   According to the United Nations convention against torture, prisoner abuse and other institutional violence blame a few isolated individuals. Social psychology put emphasis on the social contexts, which can make anyone confront, oppress and obey in abetting social behavior that is destructive. Meta analysis demonstrates quantitative reliability and imports of social context. The recent data indicates that the reaction to low status and oppositional out-group involves contempt, disgust and consistent with abuse. Together, social prejudices and social pressures are helpful in explaining recent scandals of abuse. Torture is never justifiable because, it depends on the context. A direct target of command of an enemy and control center with smart bomb with intention of killing is justifiable in combat. Even when you shoot an enemy, it is also justifiable in combat and nobody will have an argument that, when you kill somebody somehow, it causes less permanent damage than electrocution. However, in the torture of prisoners, they are in unique position and are not able to fight back. There are rules of protecting combatants so that they can surrender willingly. If an enemy can kill you or torture you if you surrender, you can fight to the last minute which cause loss of life. However, if intelligence indicates that major attacks averted by successful interrogation and holding back of information by prisoners can cause loss of life, then torture of last resort may be justified but not in a legal manner. It is unethical to take an action which is aggressive against a person with action that can result to loss of life. Legitimate government function is to protect the people from violence and force, if government consigns its people to death by protecting people who initiate violence, the government is failing in its responsibilities. We seek to offer protection to people who are innocent and protect their freedom. Sharia law tries to take our freedom away and enemies should not be allowed to achieve their goals. When we are not dealt with rationally, we can deal aggressively with initiators of war against us as the only moral response. Never initiate force but be against those who do and show them the true meaning of their violence. It is unethical if defenders shirk their duties to people through pulling punches with the people who would enslave and at the same time murder us. As we conduct ourselves in war on terror, we should always remember the meaning of true victory for the enemy. (Levinsion, 2004). Does Torture Work? Proponents insist that, it does while opponents say it doesn’t. The truth is somewhere between that it would give rise to key information in some cases, but it would be harmful in others. If a harsher interrogation yields valuable intelligence, the benefit must be weighed against enormous strategic cost. If reliability of a given argument is a wash, meaning no side will win, torture may or may not work as intended. The question that arises is the exact method that is used to extract information from suspects of terrorism and whether it is considered morally acceptable. Building trust is recommended method if there is enough time to build it. According to high court of justice in Israel, it was ruled that torture is illegal in spite of it being immediate threat to terrorist attack. If torture is used as last resort in order to save lives of enormous members, it should be done in the open; it should have accountability and be approved by Supreme Court of justice. Once torture is committed, the person should plead guilty to criminal charges. If there is a situation that is grave enough to give warrant resort to torture, it should be enough to loose job and go to jail. According to Palestinians detainees, there exists significant difference between abuse and methods used by Israel interrogators. In Israel they have rules and sophisticated techniques of breaking down prisoners. Prisoners are done much more than beatings. This is by going without food and sleep for three days which make them become eager to say anything. In social contract, an individual would surrender his liberty to exchange for protection but United States does not believe in that. Therefore, social contract is an agreement between government and people. (Miller, 2006). Are There Moral Justifications For Torture? Historically, psychologically and physically, torture is being used to suppress dissents, extract confession, force denunciation of other people, humiliate, punish and gather information. Torturers claim state of necessity. Other claim to get significant information that is why they justify torture. They emphasize on significance of information they gain than the torture itself. Torture is taken to be an evil that is necessary in fighting battle against greater evil. There exists information that is of moral significance and can only be discovered through torture. Torture is justified by state of necessity. The ticking time-bomb gives a crude utilitarian justification as to the use of torture. One man is tortured to save many innocent people. This serves as the basic claim of absolute prohibitionist. If one man can provide information about the timing of bombing, why not torture him in order to uncover information that is morally significant and of priority. If the information today justifies torture, there must be trained torturers and trainers and administrative and legal apparatus. Many professional say that there are better methods of obtaining actionable intelligence than by use of torture even if it is conducted under time constraints. When justifying morally significant information, it demands prior knowledge as to whether torture victim has information. Information must be actionable and avoid serious, imminent threat. For one to justify information using torture, the information must be previously unknown. It may not be meaningful information until someone has tortured, gotten the information and verified it for it to be meaningful. Should Torture Ever Be Justified? Failure to use interrogational torture is immoral and coldhearted. It is coldhearted because, in cases of true catastrophe, the failure to use preventive interrogative torture can lead to death of people who are innocent. When rights of suspects are upheld, it negates the rights and even the right to life of innocent people. Refusal to use torture is hypocritical especially when we are faced with serious threats to the life of Nation. Measures which are necessary in order to abate crisis should be taken. An uncompromising prohibition of torture may result to unrealistic standards that no one can wish to meet when in circumstances that are extremely exigent. (Miller, 2006) REFERENCES Miller S. (2006): Torture, Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy: Stanford university. Levinson S. (2004): ethics and politics of torture: Oxford University press. Conroy J. (2001): the dynamics of torture: university of California press. RL 32276, the UN convention against torture: CRS report.