Today in class, the topic of torture was briefly touched on by Dr. Johnson. She explained that using Utilitarianism, there can be arguments made both for and against using torture as a method of interrogation.
Since Utilitarianism is defined as striving to achieve the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people and the least amount of pain for the least amount of people, one could argue that the government torturing its detainees coincides with this philosophy. For example, say there is a bomb somewhere on Rhodes campus and Campus Safety detains a student thought to have information about the whereabouts of this bomb. One could argue that it would serve the greatest amount of happiness to do whatever was in Campus Safety's power to extract the information out of this student to find out where this bomb is and disable it. If the student refuses to tell where the bomb is, Mill's philosophy could argue that it is imperative that Campus Safety use some type of torture to coerce the student to divulge this information. If the torture is effective, and the pain of the one student preserves the happiness of the entire campus, then torture would be an acceptable form of interrogation.
But Mill's philosophy of Utilitarianism also stresses that every individual has certain "rights" cannot be infringed upon in a system of justice. These rights are valid claims an individual has on society for protection of said rights. In a society where everyone has a right to physical protection, this right should also apply to physical protection from the government itself. By performing torturous acts that inflict bodily harm on the individual, the government would be violating the rights of the detainee.
But what about forms of torture that do not cause bodily harm? Forms such as water boarding. Water boarding is the act of strapping a person down so they can't move, covering his face, and pouring water on him. This makes the individual feel like they are drowning. Is this method of torture acceptable on the grounds that it does not inflict bodily harm? Or are all types of torture acceptable according to Mill's philosophy? What rights from the government itself are citizens and non-citizens entitled to?
Even though you can argue both sides of torture with Utilitarianism, I think it is easier to argue in its favor. Part of Mill’s whole basis of justice is the desire to punish those who do wrong, so if you are being tortured because you did something wrong, then torture could be justified by Mill’s philosophy. If the torture of one person can prevent an event that would cause the pain of hundreds, Mill would also approve. Plus, when someone is to be tortured, I don’t think that they would necessarily have the same claims to certain rights that other people would. For the good of the many, some of their rights might be ignored.
ReplyDeleteContributing to Lauren's comment, Mill points out that there must be an identifiable victim in order for a wrongdoing to be committed and in turn desire punishment. In this case, it can be argued that a bomb threat has no victim because an event has not occurred that would harm anyone and his or her happiness. In this instance of torture, would the detainee be a victim of injustice based on the fact that his or her rights are being infringed upon? Although there are questions concerning the support of torture for the benefit of a greater number of people, I do agree that Utilitarianism would permit interrogational torture. However, I believe Mill would say that there are always exceptions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Haley and Lauren on the fact that Mill's philosophy of Utilitarianism does, in a way, support torture in such a situation. While the idea of Act Utilitarianism may result in morally reprehensible acts, it is designed as a means to protect the greatest amount of people. It also states that if there is a desire to punish a person who has done wrong, then moral qualities can be overseen as a way to preserve the peace and harmony amongst society. So based upon these two beliefs of Mill, it can be seen that Mill does support the use of torture if it is needed.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I would like to point is that even though water boarding does not leave any marks of torture perse, it does still cause pain to the person. So I believe, that it would be grouped with all other forms of torture. Also I think Mills would not permit the use of torture, on the basis that torture does infringe on the rights of the individual, and all that a society that allows torture would be a lot more unhappy than a society that does not allow it. Not being able to be protected from torture, would cause fear among the populous (an unhappiness). If there is protection, people can feel safe, and feel assured that they won't be tortured.
ReplyDelete