Arguments Against Torture

‘Torture can be justified if it serves the greater good’ critically discuss this statement with reference to human rights theories.

Torture, and consequently its definition, has changed through time. A Roman lawyer once stated, ‘torture is the inquiry after truth by means of torment’ (cited in Peters, 1985). This definition is the foundation for the understanding of torture in modern times. It is now looked at not only in terms of physical pain, but mental stress and damage as well, (ScienceDaily, 2009). The United Nations Committee against Torture is responsible for monitoring states and ensuring that they are complying with their duties depicted in the treaty’s resolutions and articles, (McQuigg, 2011). The Universal Declaration of
Torture is, for the needs of this writing, defined as: “the intentional infliction of extreme physical [or mental] suffering on some non-consenting, defenceless, other person for the purpose of breaking their will”, (Miller, S. n.d.). Morality, as portrayed by Chazelle, is the difference between right and wrong. Ethical codes are used to transform moral judgment or intuition into a decision around action, (Chazelle, B. 2009). The laws surrounding torture, within the human rights domain, depict that, “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.” (United Nations Human Rights, 2013). The ‘greater good’, often used in utilitarian argument, seeks to ensure the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This statement in itself has much to explain, but for the use in this essay, it will factor the ‘greater good’ as the greatest number of people in any one circumstance according to Western values. Moral absolution, explains the feeling that something is absolutely right or wrong no matter of the circumstance or consequence, usually a Kantian viewpoint, (Barry, P. n.d.). Using these terms and relevant theories, this essay will
As members of a community, there is an unwritten contract that, from birth, is signed up to and acknowledged, throughout life. The citizens give up some of their human rights, in exchange for protection from the state, (Binmore, K. 1998). This ‘social contract’ is what some pro-torture criminologists construct their arguments around. The terms of this contract dictate that the body elected to be in control of the state are there to protect the members of it. The argument is that if someone is willing to reject the social contract theory and place their rights above the other citizens then there is no option but to take state action to prevent this and maintain the safety of the greater number, (Binmore, K. 1998). The safety of the citizens that abide by the laws and mind-set of those in power should not, therefore, have to succumb to the fear and terror applied by the ‘terrorist’ and justifies, to an extent, the use of torture, not only as deterrence, but a means of safe-guarding those within the protection of the