Utility of torture
All individuals have some inherent moral and legal rights that cannot be waived by any state or individual. Torturing suspects in order to obtain information however utilitarian is therefore akin to denying such individuals their basic human rights. Any attempt to obtain information through torture cannot be justified; it is especially the case considering that often times the information obtained through torture is unreliable (Talhami, 2013). It is therefore evident that even by applying utilitarian principles (greatest good for the greatest number of people), the benefits of torture do not exceed its costs and as such is not acceptable in both the utilitarian and moral points of view. Consequently, the use of torture to obtain information from suspects is wrong.
The counter argument is that torture is one of the means of obtaining information necessary to contain crime or terrorist activities. It is therefore not wrong to subject an individual to torture if there is a significant reason to believe that they hold information that could lead to saving the lives of a large of people, especially in a ticking time bomb scenario. Secondly, there are other practices that cause extensive pain to an individual such as just wars, the use of lethal force against escaping suspects and death sentences (Buha, 2010). Despite the aforementioned practices causing extreme physical pain, they are legal in many jurisdictions. As a result, there is no legal basis to condemn torture if it is believed to be for the greater good of the society. Therefore, torture is an acceptable means of information from a suspect.
If there is a reasonable basis to believe that a suspect is engaging in crime or terrorist activity, then there is no reason as to why they should also be treated with dignity. This is in line with the view that is a person is inherently immoral so as to commit such an act then they would be sufficiently prepared to withstand contemporary means of obtaining information from them such as interrogation. In such a case, it is justified to use torture. This is especially the case considering that in most circumstances law enforcement officers do not arrive at the conclusion that a person is a suspect arbitrarily. There are laid down procedures which when coupled with information from the intelligence community increased the probability of a suspect being rightfully accused (Buha, 2010). Therefore, if the world were a perfectly moral place, there would be no need to employ such means as torture, yet it is the case that the world is not a moral place. It would therefore not be prudent to approach such issues from a moral perspective over a utilitarian perspective.
Opponents of torture are being subjective rather than objective in their argument. It is especially the case considering that there are other practices that despite causing immense pain to individuals are legal. Such practices as mentioned above include death sentence, lethal use of force on fleeing suspects, and just wars. If the opponents of torture were so much interested towards upholding moral rights, then it would be inherently incumbent upon them to uphold principles of equality too in the various practices. As a result, they should also condemn just wars and the lethal use of force. The aim of the other legal yet painful practices is to protect the greatest good for the greatest number of people which is similar to what torture aims to achieve.
In conclusion, there is agreement that no one prefers to use torture as a means of obtaining information for both of those applying utilitarian principles and those applying moral rights. However, those relying on moral rights appear to have an assumption that the world is inherently a moral place hence it is only reasonable that all issues be addressed from a moral perspective, yet this is not the case (Buha, 2010). By applying utilitarian principles, it lends credence to being more of realists rather than idealists. It is especially the case when there is time pressure brought about by the ticking time bomb scenario.
References
Buha, M (2010). Rule Utilitarian and Deontologist Perspectives on Comparisons of Torture and
Killing. Washington University Jurisprudence Review 2 (2) pp. 304-327 Retrieved
http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=law_jurispr
dence
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
