This is Torture!

A lot of the readings discussed whether or not getting information (whether it was reliable or not) through torture was morally permissible. I think that having that extra end point makes deciding whether or not torture is morally permissible more difficult because no one will ever truly know if the person you are planning to torture has the information you need or not. This makes the argument more difficult because there are too many factors to consider before the original argument (whether or not torture can be permissible) can be answered.  

I don’t think it can be said that extracting information using torture as a vehicle is completely not permissible. In terms of efficiency, sometimes extracting information through torture produces the best results. A lot of the time torture is used when the torture party is pressed for time – when the lives of many are at stake. While there are definitely other safer means to extract information, torture as a last resort (as the very, very last resort) is crucial, and shouldn’t be not permissible so long as it is truly for the greater good. Sometimes (while this may sound morbid) suffering that happens in the present may reap many benefits and even save the future. Having said, the torture should never be to the point where a person’s health is very severely compromised (kidney failure and such) or where they become near death.

Some of the readings talked about torture as self-defense. I think that whether or not torture is permissible in those cases varies case to case, because the degree of which it can be considered self-defense is not the same and is very subjective. However, what still stands is that torture should only be done in extreme cases, and the intensity of the torture should not always be very high, and should depend on the case. Torture should only be done under extreme circumstances, and should be avoided at all costs if another alternative is available.