Q.1 Viewpoint of the Author

The topic of Terror and Torture is addressed in Part 3 of Applied Ethics (Wolff, 2017, p. 488). The matter concern among the most debated and pressing questions that political authorities face in the world today relating to how to approach terrorist campaigns. Here, the concept of a “ticking time bomb” is at the crux of many philosophical discussions. The author assumes for the moment that the authorities are aware of a bomb that will result in the deaths of a significant number of individuals. Further, Wolff (2017) presents that authorities in the assumed case are well aware that the ticking time bomb will detonate within the next twenty-four hours. One of the terrorists who is now behind bars is the only one who is aware of the location of the explosives. The author poses the following questions to present his case:

Is it permissible for the government to use torture on a terrorist in order to discover the location of the bomb so that lives may be saved?

In this particular scenario, the utilitarian argument in favor of torture seems to be insurmountable, but is it a sufficient justification to do so?

Shouldn’t we also safeguard the human rights and civil freedoms of every person, even those who commit acts of terrorism?

During his encounters with Israeli law enforcement, Wolff (2017) was introduced and made aware to how well the use of torture is widespread in the world. The use of the ticking time bomb defense as a justification for use of torture led to Wolff (2017) taking a purist position against torture. He challenges the structure of terror and torture by being directly against the use of intellectual, legal, and moral justification for a pervasive system. Wolff argues that if the justification to use torture is on the basis of the ticking time bomb scenario, then usage of “persuasive” interrogation techniques should be limited to such situations. He also recommended the use of a torture warrant if the structure is morally and legally justifiable. Wolff sees his argument as a bid to increase civil liberties in situations where torture occurs as opposed to being a compromise to individual rights.

Q.2 Main Arguments for Each Position

If torturing one criminal is acceptable if it avoids the suffering of one hundred innocent people, then torturing one guilty person may also be justifiable if it stops a time bomb from taking the lives of thousands of innocent bystanders. Torturing a single guilty terrorist who is illegally withholding information needed to prevent a terrorist attack is without a doubt preferable to allowing a large number of innocent people to be killed, as the simple cost-benefit analysis that supports the use of nonlethal forms of torture appears to make an unarguable case: torturing a single guilty terrorist who is illegally withholding information needed to prevent a terrorist attack is preferable (Wolff, 2017, p.495). Pain is less terrifying and simpler to recover from than death, and the lives of one thousand innocent people ought to be treasured more than the body of a single individual who has committed a terrible deed. If torture, which has been deemed intolerable by the civilized world for more than a century, were to be permitted today – even for limited use in one particular case – it would be a tremendous symbolic loss in the worldwide campaign against human rights abuses. This loss would be especially significant because torture has been regarded as intolerable by the civilized world for more than a century (Wolff, 2017, p.496). If the largest democracy in the world condones the use of torture, it seems certain that this would encourage other nations to do it more often. This cannot be avoided. Regardless of whether or not torture is legal, this would take place. This form of straightforward utilitarian argument for a single instance demonstrates simple-mindedness due to the absence of any inherent constraints on its scope.

Q.3 Main Areas of Agreement and Disagreement

Wolf (2017) posit that everything is lawful according to the simple-minded utilitarianism approach as long as the number of individuals tortured or murdered does not exceed the number of lives saved. Unless there are other jobs that we are unable to do, this is a numbers-based morality. These additional constraints may be derived from utilitarianism or other moral concepts, such as the rule that purposefully punishing the innocent is wrong. We risk falling down a slippery slope toward immorality and, ultimately, authoritarianism if we don’t put limits on the use of torture and other unpleasant techniques to deter terrorists.

Torture cannot exist inside our legal system in order for us to have worth. We should never want our military or president to do something we believe is improper or unlawful in a democracy founded on the rule of law. Nothing should be done “off the books” in a judicial system that supports the rule of law (Wolff, 2017, p. 498). Even the necessity defense must be legally supported. The excuse of “necessity” has always been exploited by those in charge of a country’s security to acquire what they want.

Q.4 Personal View on Key Issues

I believe that Wolff (2017) makes a valid point on the use of force and torture in interrogations related to terrorism. However, I also believe that in the ticking time bomb case, the use of any methods necessary is important to save lives. In the recent shooting in a school setting, for example, I would advocate for the use of controlled torture to uncover the plot to kill tens of innocent children and teachers. To bridge the gap that Wolff introduces, I would propose a legal system that enables and controls how torture is used based on a situation and the supporting evidence. Irrefutable circumstances that would lead to saving of many innocent lives would demand the use of torture in a regulated environment that should be a part of the judicial system.

References

Wolff, J. (2017). Readings in Moral Philosophy. WW Norton & Company.