Torture is always wrong. Perhaps never that uneqivocally however, it can be shown, in moral terms, as a terribly bad idea. Below is more or less the only  example that is used by people who argue in favour of torture, and show how it is bogus.

Imagine that terrorists have planted a bomb… well, it doesn’t matter where. Let’s just say though that the bomb is planted such that some heinous number of people face death – possibly even more than the three hundred thousand people who died last year from the effects of global warming. And for some reason all of the conventional, non-controversial means for defusing bomb-situations are not going to work. Luckily though, you have a terrorist in your possession. Unluckily though, s/he doesn’t respond to normal interrogation methods. You look grimly at your supervisor. They nod. And you prepare to waterboard the suspect.

(Note that this is an immensely unlikely set of circumstances. So, even if torture were morally defensible, it wouldn’t be worth legalising.)

What sort of factors come into the decision to waterboard (ie torture) the suspect? Obviously there is a lot at stake! And obviously the suspect is a terrorist – we could even go further to say that they are definitely a terrorist who definitely has the information you need to save lives, that definitely torture will be effective, and that its usage will definitely save hordes of lives. So what sort of right does this terrorist have to such luxuries as the ‘Geneva Convention’? Do they honour it? No! And these are war times, you beatnic. 

But hang on a second, the terrorist’s ‘evil’ comes in to this decision – they are a ‘wrongdoer’ which justifies the act. Would it be different if they weren’t? 

Let’s say all the terrorists who planted the bombs killed themselves so that they would not reveal the locations. But before they killed themselves, they revealed the locations of the bombs, and all the information required to prevent wholesale slaughter, to one innocent person. 

Philosophically, logically, it is valid to postulate the following question: What if torture were the only way to get this person to give up the information? 

This person isn’t a terrorist or a wrongdoer, but let’s say that the only way to get the information is to torture them. Highly, unlikely, I agree – about as unlikely as the set of circumstances detailed above in which torture might be called for. If you like we can make up some ridiculous back story – let’s say they have some mental affliction such that they can’t consciously recall the information, but could be ‘cracked’ under torture to reveal it.

If you would still torture this person, then …all right. Clearly the over riding concern for you is to prevent slaughter, even if it means innocent people suffer in the process. Hypothetically, your point of view could be carried further along – if it is so important to prevent suffering that it justifies inflicting minor suffering, why do people die waiting for organs when so many good organ sacks are still alive and kicking? But I digress.

Let’s say you wouldn’t torture this person – indeed, they didn’t do anything wrong. And the hypothetical terrorist did. So in this case the most significant factor is the guilt of the potential torture victim – where they sit on the fictitiously simple spectrum between ‘Hitler’ and ‘Mother Teresa’. 

“So I wouldn’t torture an innocent!” you are saying to yourself, “That doesn’t matter, the f**king terrorists aren’t innocent!” But…wait a second. The terrorists are guilty?

They certainly don’t think so. In fact, they think their extreme actions are justified because the people against whom they are committing acts of terror (you, your friends, your family, your country) is guilty. 

“But this bastard is a terrorist! He has no respect for human life!”

Look, it’s not like I’m gonna invite the person in question over for poker some time. However, if you are considering torture in these circumstances, you clearly agree with me in thinking that morality is relative. The alternative is that the terrorist is morally guilty in some absolute, natural-law esque sense, and if you subscribe to that view of morality I’m not exactly sure where this highly relative but morally defensible act of torture would come into the picture. My point is that you are making a moral judgement based upon your unique circumstances and point of view and, most importantly – your own self-interests in this case. 

Because, if you can make yourself believe that the person is guilty to the extent that it justifies your torturing them, then it is a whole lot easier for you isn’t it? Friends and family won’t die, the consequences will altogether be a lot better. Mind you, you know that you are facing a (again, absurdly invented) choice between torture and good consequences, and no torture and bad consequences. Obviously if you can find a way to justify the torture to yourself, then you get to be in good consequences town, and I hear it’s a great place to live.

You have a definite terrorist. If you torture them, lives will be saved. They are guilty, no worries.

You have a terror suspect. If you torture them, lives will be saved. You want lives to be saved. For this to happen, you need to feel morally justified in torturing the suspect. For this to happen, you need to believe them to be guilty. You _want_ to believe that they are guilty. They are guilty, no worries. 

You have an innocent. If you torture them, lives will be saved. You want lives to be saved. For this to happen, you need to feel morally justified in torturing the innocent. For this to happen, you need to believe them to be guilty. You _want_ to believe that they are anything but innocent. Phew – they are. Torture ahead. No worries.

There you have it. Nothing exhaustive, I know, and there are clearly lots of subtleties I didn’t think it was called for to enter in to. But I’m tired of this hypothetical being thrown around. Here’s what it comes down to:

Either it is justified to torture someone because of the bad consequences of not torturing them or because of what we might term their ‘guilt status’.

If it is because of the bad consequences of not torturing them…well, I didn’t go into that, but it is, in short, a utilitarian road that is very, very unclear. (How many lives must be at stake? 1000? 100? 1? And outside of terrorism – is it worth killing one person to save six etc. etc)

If it is because of their ‘guilt status’, then here is the kicker:

Who are you to decide that? And what position are you in to decide? 

You face immense pressure to come to the conclusion that this person is guilty. How can you trust that, in some objective or largely agreeable sense, the person is guilty, when the alternative – that you are convincing yourself that they are guilty in order to avoid an undesirable outcome- is much more likely. 

So don’t torture them.

Popularity: 44% [?]

Imagine a bomb that could immediately kill upwards of 75,000 people, 125,000 more in the five years following the blast. That was in 1945. 

Now, imagine over 27,000 nuclear weapons, fifty of which could kill 200 million people – or the combined populations of Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Germany. 

Only 9 countries in the world are part of this ‘nuclear club’: Russia, USA, France, the UK, China, Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea. Of these countries, only China has ruled out using its weapons except in response to a nuclear attack. Both the US and Russia keep a portion of their weapons on hair-trigger alert, able to be deployed in minutes. 

The use of nuclear technology in the world threatens global security and human survival: especially with the threat of terrorism. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei has expressed fear that “nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of extremist groups in Pakistan or Afghanistan.” Annually, quantities of fissile material or weapons-grade plutonium go unaccounted for. With the right instruments and technology, possibly made available by religiously fervent scientists, terrorists would be able to construct a crude nuclear bomb, with consequences far more devastating than those of September 11.

If nuclear weapons were banned worldwide, the US alone would spend $40 billion less per year. Britain could avoid replacing its nuclear submarines at the cost of $154 billion over the next three decades. $40 billion a year is roughly the same cost as universal access to basic education, healthcare, adequate food, clean water and safe sewers for the population of the entire world. 

186 countries worldwide don’t have nuclear weapons. While Australia is one of them, it functions as an ‘umbrella state’: having accepted a ‘security guarantee’ under the US nuclear shield, it lends infrastructure to the nuclear war machine. If nuclear weapons were abolished, more money would be available for humanitarian purposes, and the world be a more secure place. What is required for this to happen is a Nuclear Weapons Convention, a treaty to ban and eliminate the nuclear bomb. The overwhelming majority of countries and people want such a treaty – in fact, China, India, North Korea and Pakistan have all expressed their support for such a convention. All that remains is for the ‘big boys’ to consider giving up their toys.

Popularity: 5% [?]