The ethical debate whether the use of torture to get information is justifiable or not remains a hot topic among many philosophers. The issue in the minds of most people has always been whether the critical information obtained from the torture justifies the evil act the terror suspect is subjected too. Most authorities will justify torture with the end result. Terrorism has always been an evil perpetrated against innocent people by groups with different motivations. Authorities will always argue they hold the responsibility to protect their citizens at any cost.
The quandary in the whole scenario has always been if it is good to protect the thousands who face a terror attack by extracting necessary information from a suspect or condemn the innocent population to an avoidable death by sparing the terror suspect from the unethical torture. In such a scenario there can be no ethically correct position. In such a situation whatever the decision one makes will be judged to be ethically unacceptable in one way or another. Humans dealing with such scenarios need to be perfectly intelligible and assume that at the time whatever is ethically wrong is forgivable.
In such a dilemma utilitarianism approach can be adopted. A terror suspect is a prisoner of war targeting mass killings. Utilitarian approach is concern with deriving maximum benefit for the maximum population (Holmes).In this approach; the terror suspect holds enough information to save potentially many Americans at risk of a terror attack. This way torture is justifiable in protecting the country at the expense of an individual.
Immanuel Kant, on the other hand, fronts the Kantanian duty arguing that at all time we must protect the moral laws (Holmes) which condemns torture of any form. Using torture on a terror suspect to obtain the information is converting human being to be just a mean of obtaining information and ignoring that the person has his human rights. And it is on this ground that the Geneva Convention outlaws torture as a means of getting information.
Christian doctrine can argue either in support or against depending on an individual conviction. In the Mosaic Law, it was common to hear an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. This can justify torture; however, Jesus in the New Testament warns against resisting an evil person and argues that if anyone slaps on the right cheek give the left too. This can be used to argue against torture. Christians always are encouraged to practice love for all and encouraged not to fear death (Caldwell and Canuto-Carranco).
In conclusion, any decision taken is informed by fear of death, going by the Christian belief Christians should not be afraid of death and hence should not justify torture in any way.
Work cited
Caldwell, Cam, and Mayra Canuto-Carranco. "“Organizational Terrorism” And Moral Choices – Exercising Voice When The Leader Is The Problem". J Bus Ethics 97.1 (2010): 159-171. Web.
Holmes, Arthur F. Ethics. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007. Print.
