Torture

I think in many cases torture can be permissible. However as my fellow peers pointed out, I think the arguments as to why some of the authors believe torture can be permissible is not very justified. I think the article called “A Case for Torture” could have some really great points, however their arguments are not very backed up nor logical. For example, the authors declare that “Torture is permissible where the evidence suggests that this is the only means, due to the immediacy of the situation, to save the life of an innocent person”. However, I believe the complete opposite of this. I do not think that is even very likely that torture could be used in such an immediate situation. I believe torture is more seen in long term potentially harmful situations such as potential terrorist attacks. Most cases of torture are long-drawn out events, not quick and easy-which causes the majority of controversy about the subject. Therefore, I would see it as not permissible for an immediate situation such as a kidnapping because there would most likely be no benefit due to the time constraints.

I do not think the idea of whether torture should be permissible or not should be simplified down the idea of the right to self-defense. I think that opens the door for a horrible slippery slope of people take it into their own hands to inflict these kinds of torture onto others arguing that it was for “self-defense”. I think that the permissibility of torture should only be used for the greater overall good of the country and saving a large amount of lives. I think the pros outweigh the cons in a scenario like that whereas if it was only used to save one life, the cons of torturing would outweigh the pros. Overall, I think that there are many cases and arguments for the permissibility of torture. However, this article did a poor job representing them.