Columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote a critical response to the McCain Amendment, sponsored by Arizona Senator John McCain, which sought to ban "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment of any prisoner by any agent of the US government (Krauthammer 1). Krauthammer argues that while McCain has great moral authority on the issue following personal experience of torture and his conviction that his take on the issue is not only right but is also in the best interest of the United States, there is more truth to torture that require consideration. This paper will analyze the author’s position on torture from the philosophical viewpoint of utilitarianism. The author argues that McCain amendment, which mandates “torture never” fails to recognize the other side of the coin (Krauthammer 2). Krauthammer proposes that the real argument should be on what constitutes a legitimate exception (Krauthammer 1). When analyzing Krauthammer’s position, utilitarianism would consider only one aspect in deciding whether torture is morally acceptable, which is if torture would be beneficial to the population as a whole. For this reason, I defend the use of torture when it has the potential of producing maximum the total amount of happiness.
The passage of the McCain Amendment may promote the belief that torture is always wrong, however, this is misguided and symptomatic of reflexive and alarmist responses typically originating for social media. It is this type of shortsighted and absolutist rhetoric that forms the basis of many distorted moral judgments that people continue to make, resulting in an enormous amount of suffering and injustice in the society and far beyond borders. Some proponents have argued that the need for information outweighs the ethical and moral arguments against torture (Krauthammer 1). Krauthammer presents extreme hypothetical situations where the U.S. courts should give “torture warrant” to elicit information that could help prevent a planned terrorist attack. This utilitarian position is both persuasive and contemptible. The reason to pursue torture in such a case is defense, which is necessary because of the justification manifests from an inviolable right to self-defense of people. Given the choice between inflicting pain on a terrorist and save an innocent citizen, it is morally indecent to prefer the interest of the terrorist.
The analogy of self-defense is strengthened by considering the scenario of keeping Khalid Sheik Mohammed in “black sites” in an isolated located in order to find gather information on what he knows about plans for future mass murder. In such a scenario, it is desirable for the government to hold him under tight conditions that cannot allow him to communicate with his allies. This is especially true if it is known that his records show history of connection with terrorist groups. In the case of a terrorist, it is universally acceptable that it is permissible to violate the right of freedom and comfort of the terrorist to prevent future attacks.
Opponents of torture argue that torture will dehumanize the society. The human rights commissioner of the Council of Europe maintains that torture constitutes “a serious human rights violation, and further proof of the crisis of values” (Krauthammer, 3). However, the contrary is true because a society that elects to favor the interest of terrorists over those of innocent citizens, when faced with a situation of choosing between the two points to need for serious ethical rewiring. Another argument against torture is that allowing its use in a limited context may only serve to increase its use. This argument does not sound in the context of torture. First, there is widespread use of torture despite absolute legal prohibition against it. According to Krauthammer (3), Israeli Supreme Court prohibited all torture in conducting interrogations, but went ahead to write secret guidelines that allowed torture under some conditions. The reality is that the existence of unrealistic absolute prohibition has driven the use of torture behind the radar of accountability.
In conclusion, I am of the pinion that torture does produce useful information that can help improve the overall happiness of the state of affairs. Even if real-life situation where torture is justifiable does not surface, the presented arguments supporting torture in limited circumstances should be made in order to encourage the society to deeply consider moral judgments people make.
Work Cited:
Krauthammer, Charles. “The Truth about Torture: It's time to be honest about doing terrible things.” The Weekly Standard. 5 Dec 2005. Web http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/400rhqav.asp
