Should the U.S. Use Torture & Is It Morally Justifiable?
Student Name
The Pennsylvania State University
Last Name
1
Abstract
Your descriptive abstract would go here. Refer to the Norton Field Guide, pp. 150-154 for
information regarding how to compose a descriptive abstract.
I. Introduction
In regards to the current scholarly discourse on the topic of torture, a shift occurred after
the September 11th terrorist attacks. Therefore, there is no use in discussing pre-9/11 literature on
United States policy towards torture and its morality; all scholars agree that these acts of terror
caused a fundamental change in the United States’ approach to matters of national security. In a
world where the threat of terrorism is very real, the morality of torture and its possible legalization
is a hot topic of debate. Scholars range in opinion, from those who are proponents of the
legalization of torture to those who are in favor of harsh criminal punishment for any who commit
acts of torture. As conflict in the Middle East continues to drag on, most scholars question the
effectiveness of the current United States torture policy towards terrorists; however, the question
of what to do next remains up in the air.
Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz has been one of the most outspoken scholars on the
topic of torture in the aftermath of 9/11. His take on the “ticking time bomb” scenario and
legalization of torture have sparked the interests of many scholars, whose responses have varied.
Scholars such as Malinski and Opotow question the effectiveness of Dershowitz’s theory, while
others such as Parry and Welsch disagree with the Harvard professor entirely and are proponents
of criminal prosecution for torture.
II. Context
To understand the ideas presented by scholars on the topic of the morality of torture and
when it should, if at all, be used, one must have knowledge of the “ticking time bomb” scenario.
Last Name
2
This scenario is used to justify torture, even in states where torture is regularly not allowed. The
situation states that there is a bomb; weapon of mass destruction or another massive threat to
human life and a terrorist knows how to prevent this attack. In this situation, the “ticking time
bomb” theory justifies torture in order to save a large number of innocent lives. Thus, it is
perceived to be ethical to torture one human being in order to save the lives of others. This theory
is the basis on which most scholars have been debating since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
III. Moral Justification of Torture
Dershowtiz is one of the most outspoken proponents for this type of torture justification.
Not only does he believe that the US should use torture in a “ticking time bomb” scenario, he
believes it should be done within the law through acquisition of a warrant. No torture can be
committed without a warrant. This idea is outlined in his article, “Want to Torture? Get a Warrant,”
where Dershowitz explains, “An application for a torture warrant would have to be based on the
absolute need to obtain immediate information in order to save lives coupled with probable cause
that the suspect had such information and is unwilling to reveal it.” While the benefits of saving
lives is undeniable, there are flaws in the argument to be considered. For instance, the legalization
of torture in the “ticking time bomb” situation could make it easier to justify other reasons for
torture; furthermore, the effectiveness of torture as a way of gaining information must be
considered as well. These are the questions that many scholars have discussed involving torture
since Dershowitz shared his theory in the early 2000’s.
Seamus Miller’s views align closest with Dershowitz and the idea of the moral justification
of torture. Similar to Dershowitz, Miller believes that there are times where torture can be ethical.
Both agree that these times of justification are rare and should only occur in extreme emergency
cases. Miller writes, “there are some imaginable circumstances in which it is morally permissible
to torture someone” (186). Miller an Dershowitz are part of the school of thought that believe that
Last Name
3
it is more ethical to torture someone as long as the benefit is large enough, such as a “ticking time
bomb” scenario. Miller strays from the perspective of Dershowitz in regards to the legalization of
torture. Miller claims that what the law allows at a certain time does not have to match with what
morality claims at that identical time. Furthermore, he goes on to explain that law is “designed to
deal with recurring situations confronted by numerous institutional actors over relatively long
periods of time” while morality is “made to apply to apply to a given situation in all its
particularity” (188). Thus, Miller’s argument engages the rarity of the situations in which he
deems torture necessary, in contrast Dershowitz’s torture warrants portray a sense of regularity.
IV. Torture is Never Morally Justifiable
Much of the scholarly discourse surrounding the topic disagrees with Dershowitz and
Miller’s moral justification of torture, however, the reasoning behind this varies. Susan Opotow
approaches the debate from a psychological standpoint. She claims that 9/11 sparked a shift in
thinking of torture, in which human rights were seen to be trivial in comparison to national
security. She believes that the “ticking time bomb” scenario is simply used by supporters of
torture to justify a lack of ethics and morality. To Opotow this rationalization is actually further
removing people from their morals and values, creating a clash between human rights, ethics and
morality and security in the US that needs to be solved before the successful victory over terrorism
(459-461). Similarly, scholar David Luban agrees that it is impossible to connect morality and
torture. Luban argues that by doing so a ‘torture culture’ is created and forms a “liberal ideology
of torture, by which liberals reassure themselves that essential interrogational torture is detached
from its illiberal roots” (1427). Opotow and Luban’s argument are compelling in that they portray
morals and ethics from an all or nothing perspective. Torture cannot be unethical in once sense but
morally justified in another instance.
While Opotow and Luban discuss ethics and morality as completely different entities to
Last Name
4
torture and cannot be merged. In Malinowski’s, “Restoring Moral Authority: Ending Torture,
Secret Detention, and the Prison at Guantanamo” he discusses why he believes the US should stop
using torture as an interrogation method. Malinowski’s main reason is not one of his own ethical
and moral values but rather, comes from a more strategic outlook. According to him, the current
United States policy is leading to a decrease in moral standing and influence on the global stage.
He writes “presenting a more positive vision of American values is critical to success over terrorist
organizations like al Qaeda” (148). While Malinowski states that United States interrogation
techniques, such as water boarding are more humane than techniques used by other states, he still
views them as harmful to America’s reputation as a nation founded on lawfulness and liberty. He
continues to point out that torture is not only affecting American morality but are not reliable since
many prisoners end up saying what they believe their interrogators wish to hear. In the end,
Malinowski believes that the positives of torture do not outweigh the negative effects (151). This
argument approaches the use of torture from a more objective point that differs from other articles.
Malinowski views the use of torture and its portrayal of the United States as immoral and
detrimental to America’s success in the War on Terror.
V. Conclusion
In the wake of September 11, 2001 and the start of the War on Terror in the Middle East a
shift occurred where many scholars believed torture was morally justifiable in extreme cases.
However, as time goes on and conflict persists more and more scholars believe that torture is
never ethical and its use in United States security policy is ruining the reputation of the United
States. While this shift in discourse is becoming obvious more work must be done on determining
a way to shift from current interrogation techniques to those more effective and beneficial to the
reputation of the United States.
Last Name
5
Works Cited
Dershowitz, Alan M. "Want to Torture? Get a Warrant." San Francisco Chronicle (22 Jan. 2002)
Sfgate. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.
Luban, D. (2005). Liberalism, torture, and the ticking bomb. Virginia Law Review, 91, 1425–1461.
Malinowski, Tom. "Restoring Moral Authority: Ending Torture, Secret Detention, and the Prison
at Guantanamo Bay." American Academy of Political and Social Science 168 (2008): 148
59. JSTOR. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.
Miller, Seamus. "Is Torture Ever Morally Justifiable?" International Journal of Applied
Philosophy 19.2 (2002): 179-92. JSTOR. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.
Opotow, Susan. "Moral Exclusion and Torture: The Ticking Bomb Scenario and the Slippery
Ethical Slope." Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 13.4 (2007): 357-61.
PyscNET. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.