Why Is Torture Wrong

In recent discussions on torture, a disputable issue has been whether torture is wrong. On one side of the argument, some people claim that torture is wrong in all situations no matter the circumstance. From this point of view, many people such as Philip B. Heymann believe that “the overall, longer-term cost of any system authorizing torture, openly or tacitly, would far outweigh its occasional, short term benefits” (536). Basically, the major long lasting effects that are a result of using torture are more drastic than the positive effects that are only interim. From a conflicting position, people are okay with torture being used in the means if innocent people are at risk. In the words of Michael Levin “there are situations in which torture is not

merely permissible but morally mandatory” (531). Levin is pretty much saying you have to use torture in certain circumstances such as moral conflicts that involve innocent lives at risk. In sum, then, the issue is whether the situation is morally wrong and if then torture should be used.
My own view is that torture is not wrong when it is used in extreme situations and there is confidence that the torture will produce benefits for that situation that could result in the saving of lives. Though I concede that torture may be used unnecessarily and result in long term effects on not only the people being tortured but the conflicts that could arise on a larger scale, I still maintain that torture is beneficial in saving innocent lives. Most examples may be “what if” statements but the power of a “what if” questions are becoming more likely to happen with recent terrorists attacks such as the San Bernardino attack. For example, if somehow there was someone who knew that the attack was going to take place in San Bernardino such as a family member or fellow worker with links to terrorism, I would support torturing him and finding the information that could ultimately stop the attack. Although some might object that torturing the person would only create more problems and set a bad example for other countries, I would reply that saving the lives of innocent people is more important than maybe setting a wrongful example and influences other countries. The issue is important because terrorist attacks are getting more common in the United States and torture could play a role in preventing the terrorism.
First of all, torture has an overpowering reputation for being bad or misused. Most stories you hear about come from the gruesome stories out of Guantanamo and how the United States has mistakenly tortured innocent people. But how do we know when torture has worked? Torture may have helped the allies win World War II and most people don’t know that. People say the torturing Nazi soldiers helped with the planning of the attacks for D-Day as Nazi soldiers gave up important information. I was never taught this in school, but why would the Allies admit to this? They would be shamed and it would be called inhumane. They needed to know important information in order to reach Hitler and torture seems logical.
If they did not release such information in our history then why would they release the success of torture in current times? There could have been many attempted terrorists attacks that were prevented using torture. It seems like if they did release information on it could increase tension and paranoia of a situation that could have been deadly. It would certainly attract the attention of the world. And the reason terrorist try to commit harmful attacks in the first place is because death draws the most attention worldwide. Levin explains that “terrorists proclaim themselves and perform for television” (533). Terrorist thrive off of attention, they are trying to get there group or name noticed. Terrorist don’t try to commit mass murder for no reason, they are trying to make a point. Levin supports his argument on terrorists that “the name of their game is recognition” (533). We should not show any recognition. When there is a terrorist attack, we should not broadcast on TV who did it. We would just be accomplishing the goals of the terrorist. Terrorist are like bees, they sting you and then they die. And the only reason they sting again is because they know that it hurts and they see other bees do it. They can easily draw attention with Social media and how quickly news spreads now provides a platform for terrorism popularity as well. Should all torture be publicized? Then maybe some people would not think it is wrong?
Michael Levin clarifies “if life is so valuable that it must never be taken, the lives of the innocents must be saved even at the price of hurting the one who endangers him.” (532) Levin is saying that the ones who don’t deserve harm should survive and the ones that plan on causing harm should be harmed in order to save the innocent. It is hard for me to say that causing harm to someone is the right thing to do. But, I cannot get the idea out of my head that if one of my family members was at risk of a terrorist attack and I knew in advance, what would I do? Assuming that I had the power to torture people. I would most likely say torture the living hell out of all suspected terrorists and find out anything to stop it because it’s my family. Am I being selfish? I would be causing pain on other people in order to save my family from pain. I’m sure most people would do the same. Is it wrong that I would be willing to do something if it saves the innocent? Then how is torture always wrong? As Levin says the terrorist “volunteered for the risks of his deed.” (533)
Philip B.

Heymann should consider the question. What would he do if his innocent family member was in danger and he had the chance to torture and find a way to stop it? Heymann would most likely answer that question with “if we approve torture in one set of circumstances, isn’t every country then free to define its own exceptions, applicable to Americans as well as its own citizens? (535). He is saying torturing would set a bad example and that the effects would result in other countries and using torture with the United States included. Most countries that we have been at war with, wouldn’t hesitate to use torture. Recently, ISIS released videos of beheadings, how is that any different than torture? Beheadings are more brutal than some torture methods. And torture does not necessarily mean the person would die. Also, most famously the Japanese tortured there POW’s captured in labor camps during WWII. Torture is everywhere already and if we stopped using torture, that does not mean other countries will. If we stop torturing, the terrorist will not fear being captured. They would be able to freely walk around and spread their ideas and plan attacks without worrying about being caught or captured and sent to

Guantanamo.
Although, when innocent people are suspected and tortured, I feel for them as. I do agree with Heymann that “the costs of errors are born by the suspect tortured, not by those who decide torture him” (534). The people who get mistakenly suffer the undeserved consequences while the torturers suffer none. Obviously the person being tortured should have links and past history that has lead to his accusations before the torture begins. And therefore Levin says the person “volunteered for the risks of his deed” (533). By associating with terrorism, you should accept that you may be tortured. If I was associated with terrorism, I would accept the fact that I might be tortured for my actions. However, I wouldn’t expect to be punished by using torture.
It seems as if an important factor in deciding whether torture is wrong, is considering torture as punishment or not. Torture in order to obtain information is not punishment. What draws the line between torture and punishment? Levin explains that “punishment is addressed to deeds irrevocably past” (532). If the event has not occurred yet and torture is used then I agree with Levin that is not punishment. But still I doubt myself in thinking that just because it is not punishment, doesn’t mean that it is not wrong.
Who decides whether it is wrong? Is wrong the same thing as being bad? Fritz Haber was seen as a terrible person for using gas in World War I as explained in the radiolabs. This man created bread from air using nitrogen and ultimately helped humans survive by creating food. Around the same time as the nitrogen discoveries, “officials in the U.S. are calling him a war criminal”(Radiolab). So he was seen as wrong for using chemicals in a war by the U.S. but how is it any different from torture? This again is when I doubt myself on what is wrong or right and which one torture fits into. The radiolab doubts badness of Fritz Haber, “I don’t know if you could entirely call him bad, I might even tilt towards saying he’s a little good” (Radiolab). How you see this man essentially affects your perception on what is good or bad and wrong and right .This discussion ultimately comes down to good or bad and evil. The U.S. who practically called Fritz Haber evil used gas chambers to execute prisoners. So are we just big hypocrites?