Tortured Ethics

"Tortured Ethics" helped me see all three views on torture: people who are for it, people who are against it, and people who are in between. Each argument made their cased and show significant evidence on their view of torture.

One view that particularly struck me was the Clarence's view, being for the legalization of torture to some extent. Seeing that I agree with him, it allowed me to see the arguments I could make for legalizing torture. Clarence states, "With my proposal for judicially authorized torture under very specific and limited circumstances, with oversight and accountability, I am in fact hoping to control, not heighten this grave moral and legal danger" (Silliman, Johnson 2). This struck me because it does seem like a reasonable solution; however, there is an evident problem with it. How would the standards for torture be made? What case qualifies for torture to be used? Questions such as these ran through my head after reading this statement. This shows how complex this matter is.

Another view that particularly struck me was Erica's view--against torture. Erica states, "I really believe it's a moot point since, as I said earlier, we are never likely to know enough to have a robust example of such a case. For the reasons I have given, I think making institutional provision for such cases would seriously compromise our collective humanity, so if you insist, I choose to bite the bullet and forbid torture even in causes where we were fairly certain there was a ticking bomb." (Silliman, Johnson 8). When reacting to this, I thought that Erica showed how strong her conviction was. She believed that torture was so wrong that there should be no circumstances. In a sense, her solution was an easier one. She did not have the trouble of defending a case that is based on certain restrictions. Instead, she clearly stated a rule that should be applied to ever case, no matter how extreme it is.

Hopefully this article will be incorporated into our discussion about torture.