Kant says that we should “act in such a way that the free use of your will is in accordance with the freedom of everyone else according to universal law.” We tried to determine if torture was unjust but had trouble figuring if criminals encompassed this “universal law” or due to the fact that they broke the law to begin with the law doesn’t apply. If universal law was present, and the criminal was being tortured for breaking it, then we would not need to worry about having our “will in accordance” with the criminal.
Torture now forces us to question Kant’s “Formal Principle of Morality.” If we treated everyone the way we wanted to be treated then torture would not occur, unless you believe that even if you break the law you would want others to torture you. When applying Mill’s theory, if we were in the bomb situation talked about in class, it would be best to torture the bomber because finding out where the bomb is would guarantee the “least bad for the most people.” Relating this to the Utilitarian Calculus, we can determine that torture is appropriate in this circumstance. Using his view of injustice I would argue that because the bomber is “disappointing expectations that he had cultivated” he is committing an injustice. But do we have the right to torture him? Also included in the Concept of Rights is “depriving someone of their moral rights.” Is torture a deprivation of moral rights? Yes. We have come to philosophical standstill!
Looking at Mill, knowing that torture has a high failure rate, it would be very unfortunate if the bomber gets tortured and still does not reveal the bomb location. This situation would not be the most “good” for the most people. Should we take the chance and hope we get the information through torture to save Rhodes? It’s tedious to determine, but if the bomber has admitted that he knows the bomb location, then he is committing an injustice and does not follow universal law so he shouldn’t be protected by it. On the other side, if he has not admitted to the crime but is assumed that he knows and is tortured with no success then we as the torturers are committing an injustice because it’s not the most “good for the most amount of people.”
It seems that every direction of what to do in this situation is "to make a wrong in order to make a potential right." Determining the difference between right and wrong in these situations is impossible. People do not want to stand around and wait for the death of many individuals, but at the same time, people do not want to torture an individual for the sake of "doing something." Is there some sort of means to these ends? Is it possible to sit down with the suspected individual and to talk in a civil manner? It would be interesting to conduct a study to see which manner of interrogation is the most effective and then to apply this method. Whether moral or unmoral, an effective interrogation would be the "most good for the most amount of people."
ReplyDeleteUsing both the Kantian and Utilitarian perspective it is clear that torture would not be the best approach. We could not will torture as a universal law for breaking the law. Kant does not state that simply because you do not act morally that you are outside of the categorical imperative and therefore we can do whatever we want to you. He simply states that the use of coercion is just in cases where it would counteract the hindrance of a freedom. Torture is not the additive inverse of making a bomb to kill people.
ReplyDeleteNow from the utilitarian standpoint, we know that torture does not work in most cases; we do not know that this person is the bomber; we do not know. Using the Utilitarian Calculus (taking everything that we know and do not know into account) it would not promote utility to torture the person. There are too many unknowns.
Neither Kant nor Mill give us an alternative necessarily, but they easily and systematically rule things out.
I agree with James: neither Kant nor Mill would absolutely support the torture. Kant's reasoning is obvious, and James already explained that the categorical imperative cannot apply here. Mill's Utilitarian Calculus would appear at first glance to support the torture in order to get the information to save the thousands of people at the expense of the one, but what about the precedent torture sets for the rest of society? When we torture this one person, society begins to see torture as morally and legally acceptable under certain circumstances. What if torture then becomes a socially accepted norm, causing both physical and psychological pain to many more than would have died in the bombing? Furthermore, I would argue that the existence of torture as a socially accepted norm promotes a general sort of evil or nastiness within the society, blanketing the population with a negativity that is not good for their overall well-being.
ReplyDelete