Hedonic Act Utilitarianism and Kants Formula of Humanity - Essay Example

Many proponents against torture focus on the absolutist requirement that it should not be permitted under any circumstance and that enforcing torture given the possibility that the person to be tortured is innocent or that he does not have the information needed fails to give a concrete argument on the other side of the what-if question. Deductively, what if he is not totally innocent or that he truly does have the information and there are others whose lives are at risk. Founding on the singular basis of the Kantian formula of humanity undermines the correlation of impending critical decisions at crossroads in favor of moral predispositions. The “ticking time bomb thought experiment” presents a direct and unfaltering inquiry on our appreciation of utilitarianism and thus supposes that the second premise, “it is not morally permissible to torture the terrorist” is false.

Sussman presents a perceptive description of the effect of torture and the existing relationship between the victims of torture and the tormentor as being one of passivity as the suffering and its inherent pain brings the person to a state where he no longer has control of his body and emotions brought about by sheer pain and fear (Sussman 2). The book, “Torture: When the Unthinkable Is Morally Permissible,” suggests what the very title given by the authors means. Bagaric, Mirko, and Clarke provided for five variables that must be present to make torture morally permissible. First, there must be a consideration on the total number of lives to be saved, second, the imminence of the threat, third, the other available means besides interrogational torture, fourth, the degree of participation of the person in the plotted devious act, and finally, the plausibility of the person’s possession of essential knowledge of the plan. Additionally, if there are little to no other means to acquire information as discussed in the third variable, harm may be brought upon him in any form but maintaining the lowest possible degree of torture and pain towards him (Bagaric, Mirko and Clarke 34-35).

 In contradiction to this stance, Jeff McMahan maintains that torture must be prohibited without classification. That the use of torture is more abused by those who proliferate unjust means and that even the government cannot be trusted to be cautious in their use of torture, however noble their intentions are. McMahan affirms that to think that any government, no matter how civilized or democratic, could be trustworthy enough to be tasked to carry out torture to prevent terrorist activities and other such threats is nothing short of delusional. In this discussion, the author does not fail to mention notorious and well-known incidents such as the Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib torture controversies where the prisoners were subjected to inhumane acts of torture. “Throughout human history, torture has been very extensively employed, but the proportion of cases in which the user appears to have been morally justified seems almost negligible” (McMahan 125).

This argument illustrates realistic and current predilection toward the abolishment of torture as guaranteed by international and local laws but it does not address in any material way the ticking bomb predicament. McMahan deviates from negating the permissible morality aspect of hedonic act utilitarianism by raising contentions founded on barbarism and human dignity (McMahan 111) and instead focuses on torture abolition based on factual relevance of its ineffectiveness but it nevertheless falls short on concluding how interrogational torture for the lives of others is a complete falsity where torture is present in the process. The discussion focuses on the ‘what if’ scenario which tends more to favor the terrorist than on the protection of the greater number of people supposing on the idea that the person may or may not have information. The ticking bomb is unrealistic and McMahan agrees unequivocally to this supposition and that the lesser-evil approach cannot apply determinedly (McMahan 116). The discussion tends to tackle the ticking bomb question but then wavers to the digression that the scenario is unrealistic and has never actually happened in real life without providing a concrete basis that answers what action must be taken in the given situation.

I am not of the idea that torture is morally permissible, absolutely and at all times, but I am of the utilitarian opinion that given the ticking time bomb case the same could be concluded. Given dire circumstances, we must be able to make the choice to opt for difficult decisions instead of passively relying on the idea that our inaction is for the greater good in the long process. “They need to make such decisions is, of course, regrettable, but more regrettable still would be not making them and thereby increasing net human pain” (Bagaric, Mirko and Clarke 31). It is even by virtue of our humanity that we make these harsh decisions because dwelling on what could have been being much worse than doing anything at all cost while there is still time. Once you are faced with the decision between having to torture one who is not entirely innocent to save hundreds who are, I hardly doubt the choice is difficult. When lives are lost and you have to explain that there could have been something to be done, but it wasn’t in your opinion, morally permissible.