Is torture acceptable if a greater good is possible? This is the question that is faced routinely in the fictious television show 24. Jack Bauer inevitibly will decide that it is necessary to torture someone in order to get the information necessary in order to stop some sort of catastrophe, usually threatening the president of the United States or a large number of people. The show presents Bauer as the person who does what everybody “knows” is necessary, but is unable to do. Others have already demonstrated the show is getting tirelessly repitive and forces the issue, yet the series recognizes the tension that is felt in the wider culture over the question of whether or not these practices are actually acceptable. So then we are back to our question, is torture acceptable if a greater good is possible?
The Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg argues that torture is never acceptable, citing the former Israeli Supreme Court justice Aharon Barak. She stated that she is persuaded by the argument that to torture is to give our enemies the victory by becoming like them. The New York Times article discusses her reasons for allowing foreign courts affect her reasoning in decision-making. Should the United States allow foreign court decisions to have an impact on its own decisions. How one answers this question is most likely determined by their system of ethics.
Is there a right answer to the question we have here raised? A ethical relativist would argue that each society determines whether or not it is right to torture for the greater good. If this is true, then what basis does judge Ginsburg have for listening to an Israeli court? If each society determines its ethics, then Ginsburg is completely out of line in listening to someone outside the United States. That leaves Ginsburg with only her own society to determine what is right or wrong. But to what society does Ginsburg belong? The United States? Washington D.C.? The legal system? The Supreme Court bench? If we were to poll those who watch 24 (society?) what answer would we get? What if we asked the former society of those at Guantanamo Bay? My guess is we would get different answers… which constitutes the society in which Ginsburg makes her decision? Further, what basis is there for anyone to reform our notion of torture if reformation is necessary? In other words, if what we are currently doing is wrong, how would we ever know?
Should Ginsburg listen to others? She argues that if we want to be listened to ourselves, then we must first start to listen to others. She is correct here, but if each society decides for themselves what is right or wrong, then why do we want to be listened to? Why do we think we are right and worthy of being considered by other societies?
I suggest that maybe there is some larger notion of right and wrong that transcends (did I use that word?) all societal beliefs. Maybe we can make an absolute claim about torturing. I would not want to live in a world where torture can be considered ethically right for the greater good when it is considered the greater good to eliminate my particular race, color, or creed, do you?
Recent Comments