There is a controversial question whether it is possible to justify torture. A similar question arises in the debate on whether it is possible to justify the use of torture during interrogations of suspected terrorists. Arguments in favor of torture starts with utilitarian calculation. Torture is causing the suspect suffering that dramatically reduce his/her happiness or favor. From the utilitarian point of view, it can be argued that the infliction of suffering is morally justified if torture prevent death and suffering on a massive scale. The arguments of the former US Vice-President Richard Cheney, who claimed that the use of harsh interrogation techniques of suspected terrorists of Al-Qaeda helped prevent another terrorist strike in the United States, is based on a utilitarian logic.
This does not mean that utilitarians certainly prefer torture. Some of them are opposed to torture on practical grounds. They argue that torture rarely give the desired result, because the information obtained under torture is often unreliable (Talhami, 2013). This means that the society does not favor from the torture, there is no increase of the collective benefit. Some utilitarians are concerned that if the United States begins to torture, the American soldiers who were captured, respectively, will be subjected to more abuse. All things considered, this result may actually reduce the total benefit, which is associated with the use of torture by the Americans. Such practical considerations may or may not be true. However, as the reasons for the objection of torture they are fully compatible with the utilitarian thinking. These arguments do not claim that the torture of human are wrong, they only emphasize that torture will lead to poor results, all of which will bring more harm than good.
Some reject torture in principle, considering that they violate human rights and are disrespectful toward the dignity inherent to all people. Objections against torture does not depend on utilitarian considerations. These people argue that human rights and human dignity are the moral foundation that goes beyond good (Tokson). If these people are right, the philosophy of Bentham's wrong. Utilitarian would say that in some point even the most ardent champion of human rights will be unable to insist that it is morally preferable to cause the destruction of a huge number of innocent people in spite of the torture of a single terrorist. The number of people matters, in the case of a sufficiently large number of human lives, people must overcome the doubts caused by the thoughts of the dignity and rights. If so, the morality, in fact, ultimately lies in the calculation of costs and benefits.
However, the scenario envisaging the use of torture, does not demonstrate that the ability to save the lives of many people justifies the infliction of cruel suffering of one innocent man. A man who is tortured in order to save the lives of many, is suspected of belonging to terrorists, that he, in fact, is the one who planted a bomb. The moral force of the arguments in favor of the use of torture for the man very much depends on the assumption that the man is somehow responsible for the establishment of threat that people want to turn away. Or, if this person is not responsible for the bomb, people assume that he/she committed other terrible acts for which deserves the harsh treatment. Moral influx operating in case of a bomb involves not only the costs and benefits, but also unrelated to utilitarianism thought that the terrorists are bad people who deserve punishment.
References
Talhami, G. (2013). Torture: The Theology of the Modern State. The Muslim World, 103(2), 250-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/muwo.12008
Tokson, M. Imperfect Utilitarians: Risk Assessment and 'High Conflict' Moral Questions.SSRN Electronic Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1250182
