Michael Sandel's Is Torture Ever Justified?

Is Torture Ever Justified?

In chapter two of “Whats the right thing to do”? by Michael Sandel, he brings up the question, “Is torture ever justified?”. Sandel brings up the point that it would depend on that context of the situation. Depending on the situation, torture is justified. It depends on the situation. Torturing someone for no reason is unforgivable but torturing someone to save thousands of lives justifies torturing.

Sandel mentions a very good scenario in determining if torture is ever justified. Sandel says, “You capture a terrorist suspect who you believe has information about a nuclear device set to go off in Manhattan later the same day. In fact, you have reason to suspect that he planted the bomb himself. As the clock ticks

down, he refuses to admit to being a terrorist or to divulge the bomb’s location. Would it be right to torture him until he tells you where the bomb is and how to disarm it?”(Pg. 25 Sandel). He brings up a very good point. It is okay to torture someone if it will save thousands of people. In this case it is justified. It would be wrong if they didn't torture the terrorist and let innocent women, men and kids die. That would make the people with the responsibility to protect the “bad guy” because they had an opportunity to save lives and they did not act on it. The main point Sandel is trying to make is that it depends on the context.

There are advantages and disadvantages to torturing. It depends on the situation. If you are dealing with elementary school kids trying to find out who pulled the fire alarm, and the principal decides to threaten kids with torture then that is not a justified use for torturing. If there is a situation where there is a killer on the loose and someone knows who he is and wont tell then torturing might be justified to save the innocent lives at stake.
Some might say that torture is not okay. There are many opinions that could support that. Torture goes way beyond the physical. It can leave emotional scars and can haunt the person that was tortured for the rest of their lives. People could not imagine being responsible for torturing someone that didn't deserve it.
People also believe that it sets us back as a society. They believe that it should not be legal and it should be left back in history. Some say that it is wrong to use torture because it makes us just the same as the criminals that we are trying to punish. Sandel mentions this in the book and sees both sides on the issue of torturing. Sandel writes, “Some people reject torture on principle. They believe that it violates human rights and fails to respect the intrinsic dignity of human beings”(Pg. 25 Sandel). Sandel is stating that some reject torture because it goes against the moral principles of humanity. He also brings up that even if it is considered wrong, under the circumstances of thousands dying, torture seems like the only thing to do in certain circumstances.
There is another side that is for torture.

Some people believe that it is one of the best tactics to get information when a criminal is not being compliant. They believe that it is a great tool to save others lives when necessary. The people that favor this are favoring torture when it is necessary not when it is not necessary. Some get confused that the criminals should be tortured regardless if it will save thousands or not. That would be unlawful because in America there is a system that will punish criminals by taking their time away and not physically punishing them. Sandel brings this up in the book. He says, “Recall that the person being tortured to save all those lives is a suspected terrorist, in fact the person we believe may have planted the bomb. The moral force of the case for torturing him depends heavily on the assumption that he is in some way responsible for creating the danger we now seek to avert. Or if he is not responsible for this bomb, we assume he has committed other terrible acts that make him deserving of harsh treatment” (Pg. 25 Sandel). Even if he is deserving of physical torture, the justice system in America prevents that from happening. Torturing is only justified when it is in the moment and the clock is ticking to save thousands of innocent

lives.
There are pros and cons to torturing.

Some find it to be necessary when the there is little time left to save people. Others believe that it is wrong and that is all there is to it. Sandel switches up the scenario a bit when he adds something new to the example. He says, “Suppose the only way to induce the terrorist suspect to talk is to torture his young daughter (who has no knowledge of her father’s nefarious activities). Would it be morally permissible to do so? I suspect that even a hardened utilitarian would flinch at the notion. But this version of the torture scenario offers a truer test of the utilitarian principle. It sets aside the intuition that the terrorist deserves to be punished anyhow (regardless of the valuable information we hope to extract), and forces us to assess the utilitarian calculus on its own” (Pg.26 Sandel). Sandel brings something new to the table when he mentions the daughter. Both sides would agree that punishing the daughter for the father’s decisions is wrong. No matter the scenario, no matter the situation, nobody should ever punish the kids because of their parents

decisions.
Since torture is highly associated with prisoners of war, anyone who tortures someone in that context must be careful. When the United States tortures prisoners from other countries, they must be aware that if an American ever gets captured they will torture him as well. Torturing is a big deal when it comes to war and if America uses it so will other countries. Every country that tortures prisoners of war must realize that if they get captured them too will be tortured just as worse. Sandel sheds light on this, he says, “Or they worry that if our country engages in torture, our soldiers will face harsher treatment if taken prisoner. This result could actually reduce the overall utility associated with our use of torture, all things considered” (Pg.25 Sandel). Sandel mentions that people fear if we use torture it could back fire and American troops will get even harsher treatment because of America using torture.
Torture is only justified when lives are at risk. If torture is used for pleasure or for no good reason then it is wrong and unjust. Torture has helped save Americans from terrorist attacks. Sandel mentions this in the book, Sandel says, “Former Vice President Richard Cheney’s argument that the use of harsh interrogation techniques against suspected Al-Qaeda terrorists helped avert another terrorist attack on the United States rests on this utilitarian logic” (Pg.25 Sandel). Torture is only justified when it will prevent the loss of innocent lives. Torture should only be used when it is the last option on the table.