Unusually, I have no major<\/em> disagreement[**] with these premises. Society often has to make judgements which end up being the greatest good to the greatest number, and some will always end up suffering. However, I still think Matt is talking out of his backside and that not only is this not a valid way of making torture ethical but even in the situation he presents it is flawed.<\/p>\n

If we look at his 24 script<\/strike> example we can address a good few issues in it:<\/p>\n

First off, it is believable. Comic references to 24 aside, it is reasonable to think that this scenario is valid in the outset (CIA arrest bomb maker who is refuses to talk). However it rapidly falls down from the basic premise onwards.<\/p>\n

I find the need to use schools and hospitals in the example as unnecessary. Does this mean that it would be unethical to torture a terrorist to save (for example) and office block? Or a car factory? Or an abortion clinic? Are we saying here that protection of the sick and young is the reason why the prisoner (who at this time appears to be un-convicted of any crime) is tortured in a way the Inquistion would have approved of?<\/p>\n

But more importantly, the mechanics fail. Badly. Here you have a dedicated terrorist who was (I assume) planning to martyr himself for the cause and now refuses to talk during the legal interrogation techniques he is subjected to [***]. For some reason, even though he isn’t talking, he has given you the information that A N Other terrorist is going to blow up the [insert emotional location here] and you don’t have long to find out.<\/p>\n

This is getting a touch far-fetched and a touch self-contradictory, but we will continue.<\/p>\n

Now, Jack Bauer turns up and the fun begins. The terrorist is tortured. What happens?<\/p>\n

Well this is a hypothetical situation[****] so we can play with anything. Obviously the torture breaks the terrorist quickly and he starts saying things. He gives up a name (for the sake of narrative we will call the person Ahmed) and claims Ahmed is the terrorist on the loose.<\/p>\n

What happens next?<\/p>\n

Well, thousands of years of human study has shown that torture is a good way of getting the prisoner to say whatever he thinks will make the torture stop<\/strong>. Not what is necessarily true, but what ever will make the torturer stop hurting him. The basic premise that torture is required is that this is time sensitive so all our terrorist needs to do is stave off the waterboarding for long enough for Abdullah to blow up the School\/Hospital\/Orphanage (whatever) and he has not only won, but rendered the torture unethical. In the mean time, the CTU\/CIA\/FBI\/Elevator Inspector Unit are busy running round chasing Ahmed (who might be totally innocent) and diverting resources away from the real threat.<\/p>\n

In this case, was the torture ethical? It failed the ethical validity test, in that no one was saved as a result of the torture. If this is too far fetched for you, what about this scenario:<\/p>\n

The terrorist gives up Abdullah but genuinely doesn’t know where he is so CTU\/CIA (etc, you get the joke) have to use their massive resources to find him – however they are too late and the explosion goes off, with all the dead innocents. The torture of the terrorist did nothing to save anyone. Again, it fails the validity test.<\/p>\n

As a third scenario, the CIA made a mistake and the man detained has a similar sounding name to the terrorist but is actually totally innocent and doesn’t know anything. The reason he isn’t giving anything during the traditional questioning is because he doesn’t know anything. The waterboarding commences. In fear for his life, begging to be let free, the innocent man shouts out names which sound plausible until eventually the torturers pick up on one and chase after the wrong person again. Again, the bomb goes off and the torture achieved nothing. Was it ethical do it?<\/p>\n

There are possibly an infinite number of examples where the use of torture in this situation is unethical compared to a very small set where it can claim some ethical validity – namely in the 24-esque one where the prisoner has enough information to allow the other terrorist to be caught just in time to prevent the explosion.<\/p>\n

The basic requirement to ever judge torture “ethical” is knowing what the outcome will be. Before the torturers begin waterboarding the prisoner they have no way of knowing what value the information they get will have. They could continue their torture until the person dies without getting the information which makes it ethical. Whatever the final outcome, the torture begins as an unethical process.<\/p>\n

So, the question I want to ask is does a post hoc rationalisation of an act determine if it is, or isn’t an ethical act? Is the detention and mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay ethical?<\/p>\n

Lastly, the slippery slope. Why is it only terror suspects who can be tortured? What about a murder suspect or a rapist? What about some one who knows a mass murderer – can they be tortured to give up the mass murderer’s location before he kills again? Why draw the line at murderers?<\/p>\n

Can torture ever be ethical? I still dont think so.<\/p>\n