Morality of Torture

Torture has been utilized throughout the centuries as a means of gathering intelligence. Ignoring its effectiveness for the moment, is it moral? If there is someone who may or may not possess information regarding an event where innocent people may lose their lives, is it okay to use torture? First let us examine the weight of each action. On one hand, we could choose to torture and possibly gain important information. On the other hand, we could choose not to torture and instead risk the lives of innocents. To choose the first option would be an enactment of self-defense of other, to protect those who do not know their lives may be in danger. However in order for this argument to hold there must be sufficient evidence of force or threat of attack. Otherwise this case would be similar to a preemptive attack based on certain beliefs. This would not be a valid form of self-defense of other, because we did not possess sufficient evidence that there were people in danger in the first place. Imagine the following scenario:

A person suspected of being a terrorist has been caught and placed in the hands of the authorities. He does not speak a word, and the authorities wonder whether or not to resort to torture. Suddenly, the suspect claims he knows important information regarding an attack that will occur in exactly 24 hours. In this situation the possibility of an attack seems very high and therefore sufficient force is detected given by both the escalation of force by the suspect and the immediacy of the event, thus giving torture the okay signal.

Consider the same scenario with one twist. Suppose the suspect had remained quiet and the authorities then threatened him with torture. Now the suspect threatens them back with the same information above. Do the authorities have the right to torture the suspect? Now the answer is a resounding no. Although the immediacy is still there, the escalation of force was now done by the authorities, and it is highly likely the suspect lashed back in retaliation out of fear.

Nevertheless, there are many murky cases, and in these we do not have sufficient evidence to believe there is both a threat of force and immediacy of such a threat. Instead, it would be best to focus on other methods of intelligence gathering rather than focusing on the gathering of information that may not even be present via torture.

There also exists an argument that torture degrades society. However, this argument seems somewhat strange, because many people are not even aware that actions like torture even exist in society. Occasionally they may watch a movie a witness a torture scene, but the thought that it may occur in their own society most likely does not cross the mind. How then, could torture degrade society? Perhaps it is a degradation of the bureaucracy that allows torture, with the argument that slowly more and more cases of torture will be allowed for. Of course is a slippery slope fallacy and should not be argued. There can be a stopping point for torture and it starts where threat of danger and immediacy are high.