Brendan Tan
Christopher Anderson
ENGL 102
1:00 – 1:50
Just Say “Uncle”
The dark side of human nature is that in an attempt to protect what we think is right; we can sink down to incredible wrong doing. This violent tendency that we have manifests itself in lesser, various forms of day to day life. But also in more serious cases we abandon our moral code and ignore the natural boundary, forcing our will against the physical or mental being of another. Torture is act of inflicting physical or mental suffering beyond the typical thresholds in an attempt to procure information, revenge or out of cruelty. While Id imagine at the drop of a hat, most people would respond to say that torture is wrong. But when weighed against the higher good, can torture become an obligation?
Should a plot be uncovered to destroy thousands of lives, preventative measures are taken and you do in fact capture on of the persons behind this heinous scheme. However, without more specific information and quickly the plan will come to fruition. What do you do? Is it now ok to force him into divulging the information you need?
One could argue that when held up against the thousand of lives at stake, torture is a morally justifiable means to and end. A lesser example would be and organ transplant, while the donor might suffer high levels of pain and discomfort henceforth, the recipient of their gift will be saved. Doesn’t that qualify as justification to the donor’s own personal anguish?
Another argument is that this goes against the will of the person being tortured. This lack of consent is irrelevant, the rights of the tortured are forfeit when he chooses to act against other people. “risoners and enemy soldiers don’t consent to being incarcerated or shot at, yet we’re not about to empty our prisons or stop trying to kill enemy soldiers.” I don’t believe this is entirely true, I believe those people gave their consent when they agreed to partake in the actions that landed them with the repercussions. Soldiers understand the demands of war, and that at any give moment on the battlefield it might be their last. Criminals understand the consequences should they be discovered or captured, and this silent, internal acknowledgment is all the opposing side needs.
Torture used to retrieve information is however by no means a foolproof cure all that can always be depended on as a last resort. There are several holes in the concept of torture that can hardly be considered acceptable conditions of a method. Firstly is the assumption that person being tortured has pertinent information that can yield the results you desire. Leaving the possibility open for innocent detainees to be exposed to prolong torture for not divulging the information the do not possess.
Secondly is that in some circumstances the information gathered that caused the initial suspicion and detainment of a suspect, is enough to justify torture. To summarize, is it justifiable to go through with torture if we are not 100% certain we have the right person. Or if we are not able to capture the individual in question, is it then alright to torture his relatives into revealing their whereabouts?
Third is the potential to escalate out of control if demands are not met. Let us say that the first method used is simply threats of personal incarceration and that they will never be allowed to go free again. What do we turn to then should that fail? Electrocution? Maybe pulling out their teeth one by one? Perhaps to slowly break the bones of their 5 year old child while they are forced to watch. There is no clear marked line that says this is too much. One might argue that this is indecisive and moves the issue away from what is at hand, saving lives.
Lastly is that the effects of torture go beyond the time period that it was employed. Should the news of these events go public, the victim despite whether he was guilty or not, as well as the torturer are often branded for life. A good example might be to imagine that your neighbors who were some of the survivors of the Donner party returned back home. There are also personal reverberations of the event on the individual. “A former CIA officer told The New Yorker in Aug. 13, 2007 article: “[My friend] has horrible nightmares….When you cross over that line, it’s hard to come back. You lose your soul.”
Torture when used for the purpose of saving lives, becomes a careful balancing act. It is not simply about whether performing the practice itself is justifiable but also the implications on what might happen if it is not used. I believe one of the problems that we see is man’s inability to accept his dark nature. By clinging solely to one side and hiding behind it, we abandon this responsibility. Judgment on such things is part of being human; refusing to accept the responsibility of our other half is not acceptable.
Torture should never be used to carry out punishment and domination. But banning the practice as a whole and marking it as taboo, simply because we cannot fathom the moral implications of it is both foolish and blind. We cannot roll over on every topic that ruffles our feathers especially because this issue does exactly have and equal and alternative solution. Their have been a great number of atrocities that have torture at their root, but we must move beyond these mistakes if we are to progress.