Is Torture Wrong?

Simple ethical questions are easy to answer. Is torture wrong? Of course it is. But simple ethical questions aren't really questions. It reminds me of the old Coaches Versus Cancer tournament, whose proceeds go to fighting cancer. We have yet to see a Coaches Supporting Cancer tournament.

Sadly, most people's thinking stops there. Is torture wrong? Yes. I'm an ethical person. I'm done. I'd like to pose a real ethical question.

Is Torture Wrong?

Consider this hypothetical. You're a law enforcement agent and you get a tip that there's a plan to blow up the Earth. You expect that they'll detonate a set of nuclear weapons, destroying the world in a couple days. Then you catch somebody who knows about the plan, and knows how to stop it. But the person refuses to divulge the details. For clarity, let's say this plan is 100% sure. There is no doubt.

If you torture this person, you will be able to get the information from them, foil the plan, and save the world.

Should you torture this person to save the entire world? This question is as easy as the simple "Is torture wrong?" question. Of course you should. But wait, I thought torture was bad. In this scenario, we might even say that not torturing would be wrong. How's that for turning the tables?

Ethics: Bad Means for a Good End

What gives? If torturing is wrong, how were we able to find a situation when not torturing is wrong? It's because ethical questions are not as simple as people make them. We've uncovered a situation where you need to use bad means for a good end.

To measure the ethics, you need to do a cost-benefit analysis and compare the bad means and the good end.

First, there's the bad means, the torture. Are you doing something wrong by torturing this person? Yes. Torture is bad, and you are doing a moderately bad thing. If you want to quantify, we'll call it a -4.

Second, there's the good end, the saving the world. If you don't take action, the world ends. But if you torture, you save the world. That's a very good end. We can quantify that as a +10.

So what makes torture ethical in this situation? The good end is more significant than the bad means. Add them up, and the +10 from saving the world is larger than the -4 for torturing a person, with a net total of +6.

So in the end, torture is not wrong, it's actually ethical.

Things Get Hazier

Just to make sure things aren't simple, since ethics should not be simple, let's explore some grayer areas.

#1Uncertainty

What if there's uncertainty? The plan is not to blow up the world, but to instead blow up a building that has 100 people in it. And you're not sure if the person you're interrogating has the information you need. There's a chance that your wrong act, torturing the person, will be bring an ethical good end by saving 100 people. But there's also a chance that your wrong act will not bring a good end, in which case your torturing in not ethical, it's wrong.

Do you torture? Please post what you'd do in the comments section.

#2Age & Person Preference

What if you're certain that an older person has captured a child. If you torture the older person, he will die. But you will save the child by the information you receive by torturing. The child has more years to live and more life potential remaining.

Do you torture the older person? If so, what makes you think you can value one life over another? Again, please post what you'd do in the comments section.

#3 Slight Change

On the flip side, imagine the same situation but instead the young person has captured a very old person, who likely will die in the next year anyways. Do you torture the young person to save the old person? If you decided you were going to torture in #2 because the older person was wrong to kidnap in the first place, does your logic stand in #3? Again, please post in the comments section.

Remember, ethical issues aren't as simple as people make them!