Ethical Tortuting?

It has been a while since I last went to Leadership in Action lectures. Topics for the past few weeks are too lame to my liking, making me prefer to slip under the blanket instead of going all the way to the south campus by bus. However, I was fortunate enough to attend the lecture this week on ethics. After the reiteration of the concept of ethics, we were given a hypothetical situation where a bomb was planted in the city centre and the only way to know its exact location is by torturing the suspect under captivity.

It’s not a coincidence that this issue was raised amid allegations against the M15 for turning a blind eye on the ferocious torturing of British citizens by the Pakistani intelligence agency. As expected, we were left with a difficult decision to make on whether to proceed with the torture for the purpose of national security. To my shock and dismay, almost all of the students raised their hands, giving their consent to the torture. Less then ten students of the class of a hundred plus were firm with the no answer. Most of them were foreigners except two who are most likely to vote for Liberal Democrats in the next general election.


I would have to say no to the collusion of torture for the purpose of national security. In this case, I would say it’s a right cause with a questionable implementation. I appreciate the noble cause of protecting the lives of many but not a single reason can justify the right to torture another human being. Any type of torture for whatever reasons one believe in is unethical. I believe that I would be undermining one’s individual right by upholding the right of the majority to get security but denying the right of the terrorist suspect to a fair treatment and trial. I would also have to bear in mind that the one under captivity is still a suspect. If I were to torture him to obtain crucial information on the location of the bomb, it is as if I have made up my mind that he’s definitely guilty. I definitely want to hold to the principle of a civilized society where one is innocent until proven guilty, won’t I? Would I hurt a less valuable life to save the more valuable lives of many? I’m definitely not in the right position to do so because I think t it’s morally wrong for me to play god by choosing lives that I feel more valuable. Besides that, if I choose to torture a particular person to safe the life of others, I would also indirectly agree to the tyranny of majoritarianism. I have a very firm belief of a balance between majoritarianism and individualism. Decisions made by a numerical majority must not deny rights to a particular individual.

It also doesn’t make me any better than the terrorist suspect if I were to torture him. In fact, we both hurt people albeit through different ways. This leads both of us to have a common standard of illegality and immorality. Perhaps after having so many things in common, both of us might become friends and have a chat over coffee. Some might also believe that the raison d’etre of torturing these suspects might indeed be similar to the one of ferocious terrorism acts. Both quarters try to protect their own kind by hurting other people. The element of selfishness comes in when both groups try to put their interests ahead others instead of choosing to fight their cause without hurting anybody. This is not an act of just saving people, but the art of protecting a group at the expense of the other one.

In any interrogation, one thing always leads to another. Many are bound to be suspects to a particular investigation. There’s ample of space for new leads to be found which lead to new suspects. Maybe tens or even hundreds more suspects need to be arrested and tortured to collect all the pieces needed to find the exact location of the bomb. Instead of hurting one to save hundreds, we might already hurt far too many. Looking at this more globally, I believe that war on terrorism is an ongoing process. As long as there are conflicts throughout the world, there will always be the oppressors and the oppressed. The latter might resort to terrorism. One might lose his rationale and do the unexpected after being pushed to a certain end. In war of terrorism, every second is crucial for the authority to block the movement of the terrorists. This means that there will always be new suspects throughout this war and torturing might not be a temporary measure.

Some one innocent might also admit to the allegations being made against him after succumbing to the slow pain and pressure during the torturing. This method can instead increase the number of the wrongfully accused and is not a reliable way to find the real terrorists. Those wrongfully accused and tortured are victims of terrorism themselves. Therefore, torturing might hurt a person to safe lives of the possible victims of terrorism, but it destroys the lives of the victims that we don’t really notice in the first place.

It makes me wonder whether many would still support torturing for the purpose of national security if it were to happen outside of Manchester, far from our own backyard. For example, would we support the torturing of someone innocent in Burma by the military for quite the same reason of protecting the majority and restoring stability of the county, or would we start championing back human rights in Burma like we used to when our security is not at risk and the threats do not involve us? However, I hope that the decision made by the majority during lecture was out of pure conservatism instead of that thin line which separates self belief and racial factor.