Sandel on the Complications of Democratic Theory

I’m posting this video because I think it shows well the conflicts Sandel points out in our reading between utilitarian and Kantian thinking concerning one issue—torture.  Please watch it!  It’s incredibly short and, I think, really helpful.  (There are tons of great Michael Sandel videos on YouTube, including his Justice lecture series, so have a look at those sometime, too.)

We spoke in class about his essay Democracy’s Discontent, in which he presents some popular justifications for democratic theory and points out some complications that go along with them.  In this video, Sandel speaks with both a Kantian moralist and a utilitarian moralist on the issue of torture. 

The Kantian, Carolin Emcke, argues strongly against the use of torture for any purpose, because it uses an individual (who is good or bad) as merely a means to an end.  This is a violation of the individual’s rights and must be avoided, even at the cost of not getting important information that could save lives.  Emcke argues further that with utilitarianism, one cannot understand what sorts of actions are purely good and purely bad, because what is good is always whatever action benefits the greatest number of people.  There seem to be no clear moral rules—to torture can be good or bad to a utilitarian.

Sandel next speaks with Peter Singer, who argues in favor of utilitarianism.  When confronted about the seeming lack of respect for the human rights of the man who is tortured, Singer asks, “What about the respect for the dignity of the child?”  He makes an interesting point, I think, by suggesting that, if one knows, in this example, that one can save the child but doesn’t, then one is morally responsible for the death or suffering of that child.  Utilitarianism, then, compels one to do the moral thing in any situation, whereas Kantians may avoid acting altogether, so as to avoid breaking the categorical imperative.  Singer argues that these people are responsible for their lack of action.  Avoiding intervention does not grant one moral immunity.

As you can see, and as we’ve clearly noticed in class, for every theory of justice, it seems there are glaring flaws that we must consider.  Can it be just to torture fifteen people if it will save sixteen?  Or can it be just to walk away from a scenario in which you could save a life, simply because you would have to act immorally to do so?  We seem, as members of a democratic society, to like both of these theories, but they have clear, incompatible differences.  If we cannot choose one of these (or one of the others we’ve considered) as our basis of justice, perhaps Kelsen is correct that one’s conception of justice is entirely relative and highly influenced by one’s environment and history. 

What do you think about this video and the conflicts between utilitarian and Kantian theory?  On the issue of torture, who would you side with?