TORTURE AND ETHICS Essay Example

from enemy combatants and high-value targets such as leaders of terrorist organizations throughout history. However, the internal law prohibits torture for all reasons. This has created a moral storm through the opposing views that torture is justifiable under exceptional circumstances.

To begin, torturing enemy combatants and high-value targets violate the standards of morality in an American free society. Freedom creates an environment where people resist evil to do the right and noble thing. Therefore, moral absolutism requires Americans to always do what is right in all situations. Such a viewpoint condemns torture as unacceptable practice in a free society. This is because of the torture causes untold pain and suffering to an individual. According to Evans (2007), “torture is morally unjustifiable because it uses people as pawns to be manipulated by their vulnerabilities to pain.” It disrespects the sanctity of life and the freedoms of life. By contrast, torture is similar to slavery in terms of the harm it causes thus undermining human freedom as advocated for by the standards of the American society. It causes bodily pain and deprives victims the control of their lives. They are entirely subordinated and controlled by the master or torturer. Such a position of dominance is an evil central to both slavery and torture thus cannot be justified under the standards of morality in an American free society.
Additionally, the use of torture to force information out of enemy combatants and high-value targets by governments trends on dangerous limits of the end justify the means which could also is also used as a rationale for terrorist activities (Evans, 2007). By comparison, the use of torture to protect people makes the

society no different than the terrorist organizations who kill innocents to propagate their agenda as they both use the end justifies the means philosophy. Therefore, governments should practice moral absoluteness when dealing with enemy combatants by avoiding inhumane treatment. A society that rejects the use of torture as a means of extracting information from enemies affirms the value it places on human rights and dignity of individual lives. However, despite these outright prohibitions of torture, some countries still use it in dealing with terrorism. Countries bound by international conventions risk sanctions

Additionally, a free society respects and adheres to the basic human rights despite the circumstances. Human rights set the limits beyond which no government should exceed. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Eights stipulates that no person should be subjected to torture, cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment (Birsch, 2013). This declaration provides protection to enemy combatants and high-value targets. Therefore, despite their past or planned future crimes, they should be treated in a humane way through a fair and regular trial. Additionally, human rights prohibit the use of torture even during public emergencies that threaten the well-being of a nation. Therefore, there are no exceptional circumstances whether in a state of war or internal political instability that may be raised as a justification for torture. However, several theories hold different positions about the use of torture in extreme combat situations. These are the ontological, deontological, utilitarianism and natural law theories.

The deontological perspective proposes that sometimes it is allowed to commit a bad act for a good reason. Therefore, it acknowledges that torture is cruel and a violation of human dignity because everyone has

a fundamental right to respectful treatment. However, the theory challenges this premise by justifying it using the existing circumstances. The deontological model raises the issue of the reason for torture to justify it. For example, other forms of violence that are equally cruel and degrading can be allowed in situations such as self-defense. Therefore, the rationalization of such forms of violence also calls for the justification of torture of enemy combatants and high-value targets for the purpose of self-defense. However, the comparison of torture with other forms of self-defense is misleading. First, violence in self-defense is justified because the adversary possesses a threat to the life of a person. However, torturing a detained terrorist is an act of violence to a defenseless victim who does not pose any immediate threat to survival. Second, the power relation in a torture situation is inclined to the torturer as he/she exerts absolute dominance over the victim. Therefore, the justification of self-defense cannot account as an argument for the justification of torture it directs violence to a defenseless victim increasing the moral damnability.

The utilitarianism theory criticizes the moral perfectionism of abolitionists of torture that uphold absolute moral virtues when dealing with enemies and high-value targets in extreme combat situations. The theory advocates for actions that yield the greatest utility and value to the majority of people. It states that an action is correct if it benefits and brings satisfaction the largest number of individuals. This pragmatic approach appeals to the moral sensitivity of the greatest number of people thus deciding priorities as per the interest of the majority. The essential assumption of the principle of utilitarianism is that the

society is well ordered making its decisions right (Birsch, 2013). In combat situations, the theory of utilitarianism favors the people at risk as they form the majority to justify torture by ignoring the victims who are the minority. The primary parameter backing this perspective is that greater moral guilt falls on a person who lets hundreds of people die rather than protect them by choosing to torture one guilty culprit. As a result, the model proposes a sacrifice for the rights of a few to achieve security for the majority.

However, using the tyranny of the majority in combat scenarios creates more ethical problems. The most obvious problem is the lack of consideration of justice for the minority group. Since the tyranny of the majority is about maximizing the general happiness of the majority, it is done at the expense of the minority. This undermines the core moral principle of justice by violating the fundamental rights of the minority. Additionally, the utilitarian approach to torture contradicts itself in that majority of people do not endorse the use of torture publicly. Such lack of open legitimization proves that most Americans believe that torture should never be used as a tool to gain valuable information from suspects. Therefore, the government should design other methods of interrogation to fight terror and safeguarding justice of all the members of the society, especially suspects of crime through the promotion individual liberties rather than those of the larger group. There is a need for a total objection to the utilitarianism approach to the torture of enemy combatants and high-value targets because it pleases the group at the expense of individual rights and

liberties.

The natural law perspective is definitely against the use of torture. It sheds light on the right actions through the evaluation of the actual purposes and functions of human beings as designed by God. The application this model in torture situations leads to a conclusion that torture is unnatural despite the circumstances. People are not born to be abused but rather to live and fulfill their purpose. Therefore, torture of enemy combatants and high-value targets violates the natural dignity of humans. This makes it not only naturally wrong but also immoral. As a result, torture is never justifiable despite the circumstances. On the contrary, the ontological theory supports the use of torture in war. Ontology does not always associate certain acts with evilness but with the reasoning behind them. The believers of ontology justify torture if committed for a valid reason, for example, the deterrence of a future attack or as punishment for a committed crime. However, if security forces are allowed to look for valid reasons to torture a prisoner, they will routinely torture every prisoner without regard to guilt but rather due to their perceived ‘legitimate’ reasons.

In conclusion, the rise in terrorism has pushed governments to the limit with several proposals to use torture to extract crucial information from enemy combats and other high-value targets to boost the efforts to fight terror and secure borders. However, the use of torture violates core ethical principles. To start with, torturing enemies is not consistent with the American standards of a free society where people always do the right thing. Torture also violates fundamental human rights that protect individuals from cruel, inhumane, degrading treatment or punishment.

However, the utilitarian, deontological and ontological perspectives justify torture of enemy combatants as a means to achieve security for the greater majority of people. On the contrary, the natural law theory objects for the use of torture despite the circumstances. The proponents of torture have several deficiencies thus cannot be used as the final decision about a country’s stand on the use of torture. The natural law provides a clear explanation to guide morality and prohibit torture. Therefore, governments should ban the use of torture as a means of extracting information from the enemies. This will create a humane society that affirms the value of human rights and dignity.