Today in class we discussed the level of justice behind
interrogational torture, and whether the torture of one in order to save a
greater population was ultimately just, according to Immanuel Kant. In Kant’s
categorical imperative he claims that one should act only in such a way that
you always treat humanity (whether in yourself or another), never simply as a
means but an end-in-itself. The understanding was that since the interrogation
would only be using the perpetrator as a mean to get to the bottom of the issue
at hand the torture would be unjust. I must raise the question, that does not
the lack of value put into humanity by the one being tortured warrant a reason
for torturous interrogation.
By no means
am claiming that anyone that has knowledge of a violent crime on a more
individual basis should be pulled into some room and water-boarded until they
confess. On most occasions the justice system will be able to find the end
without torture, but there are ones where torture can be warranted. In events
of imminent attack, or dealing with those who have no value for human life, or
dealing with those create an essence for time extraordinary measures may have
to be taken.
To discuss
the level of justice behind interrogation, I will try to prove it just through
the categorical imperatives that Kant presents us with. The object of the
torture has not treated humanity as an end. To restore the importance in
humanity one would have to find the epicenter and eliminate it. By torturing
one who is not willing to release information in order to restore that
importance you are making him or her apart of the end, considering he is
included in the importance of humanity. The torture also creates a level of
rectification that we have included as apart of all of the justice systems we
have discussed thus far in some way, shape, or form.
Kant also
claims in his categorical imperative that one should act only in such a way
that you could will the maxim of your actions as a universal law. Protecting
the humanity of anyone person, to me, justifies the torture. There could be a
universal law that in times of eminent danger to humanity by a person that has
no value for it, extraordinary for interrogation are justifiable. The
protection of humanity therefore would be a maxim that would work in a kingdom
of ends.
First of all, I personally agree that interrogational torture can be justified. However, I do not think Kant would agree. In class we discussed whether or not lying could be justified. If I remember correctly, the final decision was that lying was wrong, even though lying could be used to save someone’s life. The ends do not justify the means. Although lying saved someone’s life, it is ultimately wrong to lie, and you could not impose a law that states that lying is a proper course of action. This violates Kant’s categorical imperative.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this would not necessarily uphold Kant's categorical imperatives. Similarly to Lauren's point, Kant's idea of how to be moral we cannot and should not take into consideration the consequences of our actions (whether they be good or bad). In general when torturing someone for information, in Kant's terms, we would be saying that one ought to conduct themselves like that (become a torturer) when vital information is needed. Sometimes I it's vital to know what drugs someone has taken when they end up completely disillusioned in the ER, and although this is a situation of life or death (as well as an offense against the general law) I don't think anyone would take to torturing them in order to get the information out. Or in general would say that they too would want to be tortured for information that someone else found vital. Although when considering the consequences of torture sometimes it seems necessary, when we look at Kant's definitions it does not seem to fit into is categorical imperatives for humanity as a whole.
ReplyDeleteIn a way, I do agree with Lauren and Colleen on the idea of categorical imperatives not agreeing with interrogational torture considering it can fall into the same category as lying. However, Kant's categorical imperative is generally defined as being anything that can declare something to be necessary. Based upon this definition, I would agree with Trey more on the idea that when a situation arises in which humanity may be in danger, then interrogational torture could be seen as justifiable. This idea of torture can be incredibly debatable because where does the line get drawn for what it is necessary and what is not? The idea of necessary could differ greatly between the victim and the one initiating torture.
ReplyDelete