George W. Bush provided yet another example to fortify his image as an under thinking cowboy with his response to the question verifying why his administration permitted the use of the waterboarding technique on held suspects. “Because the lawyers said it was legal.”
Let’s do what he didn’t and break down the moral argument.
Question: Should torture be an acceptable means to an end?
Broadly considering torture, we have to assess the concept and the administration of it separately. What makes this debate perplexing to me is that each perspective leads to a different conclusion.
I compare this issue to the one surrounding the use of the death sentence. Applying torture or sentencing someone to death is violating their right to live. One living being does not have to right to take away another living being’s right to life. And then there is a big but.
But when an individual has himself (or herself) violated someone else’s right and existence, they can no longer uphold their own. Hence on moral grounds, the concept of sentencing a murderer to death or torturing one of the 9/11 conspirators is morally justified.
For anyone who has watched The life of David Gale the unavoidable issue of administering this accurately relates to the correct identification of guilt. Sentencing the wrong man to death or torturing a suspect who in fact has no information (nor intent of harm) can’t be undone.
The label of torture includes a vast range of actions. Some of these actions are legally permissible on grounds of being less painful or arguably not causing permanent damage. For the greater good of saving a vast number of lives of good citizens, the mild torture approach is thus rendered valid with a legal stamp.
The question of how to guarantee that the innocent is not victimised is still unaddressed.
The logistics of executing these techniques further undermine why it is legal in any way despite the moral justification. Over the years numerous pictures, anecdotes, videos have been captured and publicised that illustrate how the use of torture is being abused or misused by military personnel, for example.
Which individuals are actually authorised to exercise torture?
Which organisation or individuals can guarantee that the guilty rather then innocent are at the receiving end of it?
And who is confirming that in fact only certain set of torture practices are being administered any way?
No one.
There is no guarantee. Just excuses.
Governments are afraid to make the moral argument for why torture should in concept be permissible under the correct circumstances. Surprisingly, this part of the discussion has never surfaced. The focus remains on simply what type of torture routines are practiced and whether any incidents are in breach of stated guidelines.
It is shocking to my mind that the entire subject of torture is thus entirely mistreated and inadequately addressed with the moral issue being sidelined. Hence even though I condone the moral argument in some situations the fact that it is entirely neglected in the reasoning presented by administering authorities undermines their entire practice even if it is targeting the individuals who are guilty.
Let’s do what he didn’t and break down the moral argument.
Question: Should torture be an acceptable means to an end?
Broadly considering torture, we have to assess the concept and the administration of it separately. What makes this debate perplexing to me is that each perspective leads to a different conclusion.
I compare this issue to the one surrounding the use of the death sentence. Applying torture or sentencing someone to death is violating their right to live. One living being does not have to right to take away another living being’s right to life. And then there is a big but.
But when an individual has himself (or herself) violated someone else’s right and existence, they can no longer uphold their own. Hence on moral grounds, the concept of sentencing a murderer to death or torturing one of the 9/11 conspirators is morally justified.
For anyone who has watched The life of David Gale the unavoidable issue of administering this accurately relates to the correct identification of guilt. Sentencing the wrong man to death or torturing a suspect who in fact has no information (nor intent of harm) can’t be undone.
The label of torture includes a vast range of actions. Some of these actions are legally permissible on grounds of being less painful or arguably not causing permanent damage. For the greater good of saving a vast number of lives of good citizens, the mild torture approach is thus rendered valid with a legal stamp.
The question of how to guarantee that the innocent is not victimised is still unaddressed.
The logistics of executing these techniques further undermine why it is legal in any way despite the moral justification. Over the years numerous pictures, anecdotes, videos have been captured and publicised that illustrate how the use of torture is being abused or misused by military personnel, for example.
Which individuals are actually authorised to exercise torture?
Which organisation or individuals can guarantee that the guilty rather then innocent are at the receiving end of it?
And who is confirming that in fact only certain set of torture practices are being administered any way?
No one.
There is no guarantee. Just excuses.
Governments are afraid to make the moral argument for why torture should in concept be permissible under the correct circumstances. Surprisingly, this part of the discussion has never surfaced. The focus remains on simply what type of torture routines are practiced and whether any incidents are in breach of stated guidelines.
It is shocking to my mind that the entire subject of torture is thus entirely mistreated and inadequately addressed with the moral issue being sidelined. Hence even though I condone the moral argument in some situations the fact that it is entirely neglected in the reasoning presented by administering authorities undermines their entire practice even if it is targeting the individuals who are guilty.
No comments:
Post a Comment