Can Torture Be Justified?

Abstract

ABSTRACTTorture requires careful definition, because of the degree to which its definition often entails its moral condemnation. Torture involves the deliberate infliction of (intense) pain for coercive or punishment reasons. While emphasizing that the act of torture is indeed naturally seen as repulsive and ideally should not take place, I offer a non-utilitarian argument to ethically justify torture in specific kinds of interrogative cases. This argument closely examines the moral isomorphism between cases of immediate and delayed self-defense, showing that in both cases lethal force is justified. I further show that, once one’s life is forfeit, one’s other rights pertaining to the defense of one’s intended victims are likewise forfeit. As such, any form of interrogative torture necessary to procuring relevant information from persons involved in a lethal attack upon innocent persons is ethically justified. However, that an action is strictly ethically justified does not entail that it ought to be generally adopted. Several potent constitutional and sociological concerns are raised and considered.