Utilitarianism On Torture

Torture can be defined as the act of intentionally committing pain to another individual, whether physically or mentally, upon another individual under your control or confinement (Barnes, 2016, p. 110). The standard way of thinking about torture, is that it should never be reinforced in any way, shape or form. The debate on justifiable uses of torture has escalated ever since the disastrous events of 9/11. As with most conscientious topics, there are two opposing sides to this argument. These two sides correspond to two theories, utilitarianism (pro-torture) and deontology (against torture) (Cohan, 2007, p. 1588). A variety of arguments have been constructed for the utilitarian view, such as cost-benefit analysis, hypothetical bomb scenarios,

The opposing side that will be examined are the issues that arise when torture is used, or the negative aspect of torture. On August 23rd, 1985, Canada became a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Inhumane Punishments, openly broadcasting their negative view on torture (UN General Assembly, 1984, p. 85). This view is widely supported by many, especially considering the countless issues that arise when torture is utilized. The most important aspect is dealing with the concern for human rights. It is essential for those who are in agreement with torture to understand the need to protect prisoners. According to author Ivan Zinger, “treating prisoners with humanity actually enhances public safety” (2006, p. 127). This is because by doing so, all of society will be able to use this as a model for the important notion that everyone is to be treated with respect to their human rights. Regardless of their race, gender, socio-economic status, religion, or education it is essential that everyone is treated equally under the law (Zinger, 2006, p. 127). Furthermore, though it has been noted that torture through interrogation can produce required information, such as in the ticking time bomb scenario, interrogation often times can produce wrongful admissions of guilt (Neve, 2007, p.117). In an example brought up by scholar Alex Neve, Maher Arar experienced interrogations in both Syria and the United States, which led to intensive torture and abuse in

In relation to mental aftermath, there is also a lasting effect that torture has on individuals. While being away for so long, these victim 's lives are turned upside down. Whatever sort of stable lifestyle they once had is stripped away and replaced with fear, trauma, and abuse. Depending on the circumstances and intensiveness of the torture and trauma, a career may be unavailable, which in turn would disallow the individual to be able to support themselves. Not to mention the families of the victims, who have themselves undergone stress, fear and perhaps anger towards those responsible for the damage and torture of their loved ones. In fact, as showcased on holocaust survivors, treatment may be ineffective because of the severity of the damage caused by torture (Hárdi & Kroó, 2011, p. 135). Any social or communal ties would be put in jeopardy as the stigma of being labeled a threat to national security would follow and haunt the victim and their family for life. All psychological, mental, and physical functioning can, and most likely, will be affected from torture (Hárdi & Kroó, 2011, p. 137). Clearly, the use of torture has detrimental lasting effects on the victim, the victim 's family and the rest of society as