This essay deals with torture and investigates and challenges arguments trying to justify torture.
The line of justification of those supporting torture most commonly focuses on so called “ticking time bomb” scenarios. These are hypothetical situations in which a captive knows where a time bomb is hidden but refuses to divulge that information.
In such situations, it is contended, torture is morally permissible and justifiable as it is the only means to save innocent lives. In these circumstances, it is less bad to inflict physical harm on a guilty person than to allow large numbers to die. According to Bagaric and Clarke, torture should be used when “the threat is imminent, there are no other means of alleviating the threat, and the suspect is known to have the relevant information”.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The "Ticking Time Bomb" Scenario
3. Practical and Moral Implications
4. Conclusion
Objectives and Themes
The essay critically examines the ethical and practical justifications for the use of torture, specifically questioning whether scenarios like the "ticking time bomb" can ever provide a legitimate basis for violating human rights and dignity.
- The ethical debate surrounding the justification of torture.
- Critique of the "ticking time bomb" hypothesis.
- Practical limitations and the unreliability of torture as an interrogation method.
- The "slippery slope" argument regarding legalizing torture.
- Human rights, dignity, and the moral absolute against torture.
Excerpt from the Book
Torture: Is it ever justifiable?
“Torture has ceased to exist” Victor Hugo, the famous French novelist announced in 1874 (Abrahamian 1999, p. 1). Before the beginning of the 21st century, all people, at least those living in developed countries, would have readily agreed to Hugo’s famous pronouncement. Then came September 2001 – and everything changed.
According to the UN, torture means “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed […]” (UN 1984, Article I). In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11th 2001, not only American society but the whole world was forced to question its values and a heated debate about the justification of torture was set in motion. The prohibition on torture is accepted as a peremptory norm of international law, it can be found in numerous human right treaties and torture used to be incompatible with the values of a civilized society (Luban 2009, p. 1427). In Contrast, various scholars advance the view that sometimes the rights of few must be sacrificed in order to save the lives of many and to ensure national security (Evans 2007, p. 57). However, there is compelling evidence that torture can never be (legally) justified.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the historical shift in the perception of torture following the events of September 11, 2001, and presents the central conflict between international human rights and the argument for state-sanctioned torture.
2. The "Ticking Time Bomb" Scenario: This section explores the hypothetical argument that torture is permissible to prevent imminent mass casualties, analyzing the specific requirements necessary for such a scenario to occur.
3. Practical and Moral Implications: The author evaluates the effectiveness of torture, the potential for abuse by officials, and the "slippery slope" risks associated with formalizing legal exceptions for torture.
4. Conclusion: The final chapter synthesizes the evidence to conclude that the "ticking time bomb" is an unrealistic scenario and that torture remains a violation of human rights that cannot be justified.
Keywords
Torture, Human Rights, Ticking Time Bomb, Ethics, International Law, Terrorism, Interrogation, Slippery Slope, Abu Ghraib, Human Dignity, National Security, Morality, State Policy, Confession.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this argumentative essay?
The essay addresses the ethical and practical validity of the argument that torture can be justified in specific, extreme circumstances, particularly the so-called "ticking time bomb" scenario.
What are the primary thematic fields addressed?
The themes include international law, professional ethics, the psychological reality of interrogation, and the risks of legalizing institutional violence.
What is the primary research objective?
The objective is to determine whether the "ticking time bomb" argument holds up against practical reality and moral standards, ultimately arguing that torture can never be legally or morally justified.
Which scientific method is utilized?
The author uses a qualitative, analytical approach, reviewing existing scholarly literature, legal definitions from the UN, and expert testimonies from intelligence and psychology to critique the hypothesis of justifiable torture.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body examines the prerequisites of the "ticking time bomb" theory, the unreliability of information extracted through pain, and the dangers of the "slippery slope" where legalizing torture in extreme cases leads to widespread abuse.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Torture, Ticking Time Bomb, Human Rights, International Law, and Slippery Slope.
How does the author counter the "principled break" or "torture-warrant" argument?
The author argues that human motives—such as sadism and the love of power—cannot be contained by regulations, noting that even existing laws did not prevent abuses like those seen in Abu Ghraib.
What role does the "slippery slope" argument play in the essay?
The slippery slope argument highlights that allowing exceptions for torture, even in theoretical extreme cases, creates a precedent that inevitably leads to the expansion and misuse of torture by state officials.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Helen Schropp (Autor:in), 2012, Torture. Is it ever justifiable?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/337941
