Inflicting Undue Harm or Torture - Essay Example

?Inflicting undue harm or torture to be blunt, to achieve any sort of gain or advantage, is in itself a violation of morality and an individual’s human rights. More so, if such an act originates or is perpetrated or condoned from a freedom and democratic oriented society, it then becomes a clear conflict of interest as well. A sentient being is inherently endowed with rights that cannot be or must never be overlooked. However, it is worth noting that to accord an individual of his or her rights is not an absolution of crimes or violations committed, nor is it a form of reprieve. Hence, even with prisoners, there can be no excuse to place an individual in a situation wherein his / her rights are violated since the act of penalizing someone is nowhere close to the act of overlooking ones basic rights. As early as 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates, in unqualified terms, that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (Evans, R, 2005, The Ethics of Torture). In the following year 1949 “the Geneva convention not only stipulated the provision for protection of enemy combatants and civilians but also instruct that unlawful combatants must be “treated with humanity and shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial” (Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 5) (Evans, R, 2005, The Ethics of Torture) . It must be noted that arguments regarding the act of torture that are pro and against it can be presented. “There is an old Jewish joke about two Yeshiva students who go to the rabbi to settle a heated legal dispute over which they have been arguing all day. Max, the first student, offers cogent theoretical and pragmatic arguments that forcefully make his point. The rabbi listens carefully and declares, ‘Max you are surely right!’ Next the second student, Joshua, presents his side with vigor. He makes clear and concise counter-arguments and demonstrates how his position is supported by precedent. He argues with such passion and persuasion that the Rabbi, after listening closely, says, ‘Brilliant arguments Joshua – you are clearly correct!’ After the students leave, the rabbi’s wife, who was listening in on the exchange, says to her husband, ‘Are you crazy? Max and Joshua had conflicting arguments, how can you say both of them are right? When one is right the other must be wrong!’ The rabbi thinks long and hard on this and finally says to his wife, ‘You know what? You too are right!’” (Wijze. S. d., 2005, The Torture Debate in America) Both arguing sides are sure to have valid reasons to support their arguments but what is important that a society understands the moral worth of such an act, the moral duty of every member of the society, as well as result of such an act to society. If a society where to gauge the moral worth of its actions by the consequences that it produces, then the act of torture might be viewed as something acceptable. For instance, torturing a captured alleged terrorist for information that can ultimately lead to the alleviation of terrible events, can be a worthwhile reason to justify the act of torture. Take for example the captured Al-Qaeda members. “the goal of American officials was chiefly to acquire information that could be used to prevent a future terrorist attack. In particular, the capture of high-ranking al-Qaeda members such as Abu Zubaida, Mohamed al-Kahtani, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed raised the possibility that American officials may have custody of individuals with extremely valuable "actionable intelligence," in the lingo of military intelligence officials. Intelligence personnel naturally made it a high priority to get these detainees to talk. Because many suspected militants had proven to be skilled at resisting traditional, noncoercive interrogation techniques such as promises of leniency in exchange for cooperation, American officials sought advice to see whether it would be legally permissible to use certain coercive techniques on "high value" captives” (Wendel, W. Bradley, 2005, Legal Ethics and the Separation of Law and Morals) However, by simply weighing-out the pros and cons of what may happen if such an act is not done as well as looking at the benefits that can be attained, is looking at the subject of torture in a very flawed manner. Such a mindset would be like trying to arrive at something good by using a method that is fundamentally wrong, much like hoping to squeeze fresh juice out of a rotten orange. In gauging moral worth of actions, it must be viewed holistically. On the context of terrorism, while it might be true that torturing captured terrorist might yield valuable information to alleviate disastrous events or help gain an advantage over an enemy. It however does not provide lasting solutions. And almost certainly breeds more retaliatory actions and diminishes the opportunity to foster brotherhood within the international community. More importantly, such an act degenerates a society rather than helps it, to develop into a better one. One that is not prone to be targeted by terroristic actions. Adherence to moral duties should not turn a public institution into a blind and mindless one, like many things in this world adherence moral duty has its basic forms which are meant to evolve and branch out in so far as their observance is concerned, depending on different situations or circumstances. An agreeable characteristic of such moral duties would be their intrinsically good nature. For example, the moral duty “not to lie”, it’s very basic form of adherence would simply be to tell the truth and be honest, if the adherence to this moral duty would not branch out, then officials from the witness protection program would be acting immorally since they have to lie or make covered up information for people under their agencies protection. But of course that is not the case. Another example of a moral duty would be “to serve and protect”. One that is upheld by law enforcement agencies, does not give the right for these agencies to resort to torturing criminals held in custody if only to uphold their moral duty. In the same way, members of these agencies can’t be held liable for not acting morally if they did not resort to torture methods, even if it meant serving and protecting the community under their jurisdiction, clearly because the adherence to such a moral duty evolves with different scenarios and it can be done utilizing other methods. Ideally these methods should still be aligned with the intrinsic nature of the moral duty. A society faced with issues and concerns create policies to aid its leaders in addressing its problems, this process of creating policies often arrives at coming up with multiple results. It is generally acceptable that members of a society desire things that would give them maximum benefit. Hence, policies that provide the most number of desirable results and benefits are deemed as good actions. Such a mindset provides a wider perspective for a community’s governing body and helps them select the best possible policy to be implemented. Going back to the context of terrorism which is one of the pressing concerns of our world today, governments of different nations have created various policies to address such a threat, but it is important that these policies address not only one aspect of the problem which is detection of possible terrorist actions, but more importantly its prevention as well. The liberty of human beings must never be taken for granted, looking further in the perspective of human liberty, all human beings are born free and equal. While it is true that a certain hierarchy occurs in a community, brought about by social and economic factors or certain authority mandated by a community’s governing body. The basic rights and liberties remain intact since they are inherent to all human beings. Finally, it must be noted that no matter how many times it is rationalized, the act of torture is simply an unacceptable method that is tainted with malice to completely disregard human liberty and is too barbaric for it to be utilized in a civilized society. A governing body, must be able to establish the moral worth of its actions, make a clear stand with respect to its moral duty and come up with the best possible policy that will address its pressing concern and will give rise to a lasting solution to its problem. Sources Teleology, About.com, viewed September 17, 2011 http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blfaq_phileth_teleo.htm Deontology, About.com, viewed September 17, 2011 http://atheism.about.com/od/ethicalsystems/a/Deontological.htm Utilitarianism, NetPlaces.com, viewed September 17, 2011 http://www.netplaces.com/philosophy/utilitarianism-a-philosophy-of-pleasure-and-happiness/ Utilitarianism, About.com, viewed September 17, 2011 http://economics.about.com/od/economicsglossary/g/utilitarian.htm Natural Law, About.com, viewed September 17, 2011 http://www.netplaces.com/philosophy/enlightenment-empiricism-sir-isaac-newton-and-john-locke/natural-law-and-natural-rights.htm Evans, R, 2005, The Ethics of Torture Wendel, W. Bradley,2005, Legal Ethics and the Separation of Law and Morals Greenberg, K, 2005, The Torture Debate in America Read More