Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Tortured Reasoning and its Biggest Flaw

Every time I would encounter a scene in a movie or television show displaying torture, I would cringe and thank god I was not in that terrible situation. The gruesome scenes would make me sick and just bring a surge of discomfort. After finishing the movie or television program, the scenes of torture would eventually leave my mind and fade away. Through time, I never really pondered on the concept of torture or fully analyzed it, until taking Humanities Core. Especially for winter quarter, torture is emphasized in the course and it is conceptualized by various authors and debates. Torture, to my knowledge and interpretation, is damage that is inflicted on a subject for means of acquiring specific information or for cruel punishment.


Various authors such as Alan Dershowitz, Elaine Scarry, J.M. Coetzee, and more all discuss torture and give their critical interpretations while arguing if it is necessary or not. Focusing on Alan Dershowitz and Elaine Scarry, they soon formed a debate on torture and its ethicality due to one agreeing and the other disagreeing. Dershowitz approved torture if one was warranted and Scarry completely disapproved of it mainly because it is unethical.


Initially, Alan Dershowitz establishes in his essay Tortured Reasoning an ultimatum on what is commonly portrayed in popular culture, The Ticking Time Bomb Scenario.
In that scenario, the “protagonist” faces the ultimatum of torturing his subject in return for receiving intelligence that will potentially save the city or civilians whom are in danger. The information is usually a location of a bomb or weapon of mass destruction that will be used in a given time frame. Alan Dershowitz implicitly justifies that torture in this sake as necessary for the purpose of heroism. Through this justification, Dershowitz becomes a situationalist or consequentialist.  A situationalist is a person who justifies torture depending on the circumstances. Dershowitz does not want torture to be the new norm, however, accepts torture if the “protagonist” is licensed with what he conceptualizes, a “torture warrant” from a judge or U.S. official. The warrant would grant him legitimacy to torture his subject without being held accountable after the issue is resolved.


Elaine Scarry, on the other hand, begs to differ. She critiques Alan Dershowitz directly in her writing, “Five Errors in the Reasoning of Alan Dershowitz”. Scarry believes that torture is unnecessary regardless of the situation. Through this belief, she falls under the category of an absolutist. An absolutist is a person who is against torture and believes that it should not be practiced under any circumstances. Moreover, Scarry especially critiques the Ticking Time Bomb Scenario. According to her, it is often described as highly improbable because knowledge is imperfect and the torturer is suddenly granted the omniscience to know that the subject has the crucial information on the whereabouts of the bombs. Why can’t the torturer instead know where the bomb is or how does he know if the information is accurate? Additionally, torture warrants are unnecessary since the protagonist might now have enough time to obtain one given the little time they have to save the city. The Ticking Time Bomb scenario is thus superficial and should not be used as an excuse to subjugate another human being for information.


After reading both accounts on the issue, I fall more under being an absolutist and considering the virtues and ethics if it does occur. To put it out there, torture should not be done because it is cruel against humanity. We forget that everyone is human, regardless of their actions or thoughts. They are individuals who have the right not to be tortured. It is not ethical to harm someone and basically dehumanize them based on their actions. The torturer should acknowledge that one’s actions define them; what you do you will become. Consider virtues and what the right thing to do is.




Source Images

No comments:

Post a Comment