The word ‘torture’ has already been defined by the question: to be something that is frowned upon. The ‘torture’ being spoken of is that which is usually practiced on prisoners of war. The soldiers of opposing armies or opposing intelligence agents physically or mentally hurt or disable a person, in order to obtain information from them.
From an ethical or moral standpoint, the view on torture can go either way. From the perspective of those who believe in self-interest, getting vital information for the security and well-being of one’s self and one’s country is more important than the amount of pain another is going through. On the other-hand, those believers in dignity over value say that putting any person through unimaginable pain in agony is neither justified nor humane (moral). Obviously this dilemma can be handled either way, based upon the decider’s ethical values. For example, in the case of alleged terrorists in Guantanamo Bay being tortured, based the evidence can be possibly brought to one correct answer. From the media coverage over the last few years, the soldiers have been said to torture the prisoners for their own entertainment. Obviously in this case torture can not be justified to society, but those self-interest theorist can argue that the soldiers are doing it for themselves; they are bored and need something to entertain themselves with. The dilemma here though is whether [necessary] can be justified to society. A counter argument for dignity over value believers, which can also be used as a main argument for self-interest theorists is: The army doesn’t torture terrorists→ no information is gained→ another attack on American soil→ many more thousands of Americans are killed. Self-interest theorists just change the diction for dramatic affect: Captives are brutally tortured→ CIA/FBI gain vial information about future attacks→ attacks are prevented. In this case torture seems like a perfectly reasonable option. But as stated previously, those who torture others for their own amusement are only able to justify it to themselves due to their moral coldness and total selfishness. That is simply a case of motive, where consequence has no relevancy. Morality is based upon an individuals reasoning and perception of their own emotions. The language aspect of knowledge only affects how an individual is able to relay their moral or code of ethics to others.
Throughout history, this discussion has taken place many thousands of times. A possible assumption could be that since nothing has changed, torture is justified at certain times. But since there will always be opposition, there will always be controversy over this topic. Just like ethically there is no correct answer, history also gives a conclusion based on what culture, region, or religious group it was that tortured its prisoners or refused to torture their victims.
Even though there is no clear cut scientific or a mathematical aspect, it can still be said that since torture has failed to work, there is no proof that it will or won’t help. And from an artistic perspective, there is no one way to conduct successful torture. Torture works if the prisoner is weak, and it doesn’t work if they are strong and loyal.
Since there is no obvious or correct answer to whether torture is ever justified, if the capturer deems it necessary and justified, then they can go ahead and try it, and see what happens, or choose otherwise and do nothing.
