Torture , livre ebook
130
pages
English
Ebooks
2007
Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne En savoir plus
Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement
Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement
130
pages
English
Ebooks
2007
Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne En savoir plus
Publié par
Date de parution
24 mai 2007
Nombre de lectures
0
EAN13
9780791479674
Langue
English
The "war on terror" has brought the subject of torture to the forefront of public attention. In contrast to other discussions that focus narrowly on the practice of torture, and condemn it under any and all circumstances, Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke argue that to take this position is to live in a moral vacuum. The subject of torture causes our emotions to conflict with our reason. When we have a choice between saving the life of an innocent person, and not harming a terrorist or other wrongdoer, it is indecent to absolutely prefer the interests of the wrongdoer. In contrast, they propose a moral standard where each individual's interest counts equally. Within this standard, the ostensibly brutal act of torture may be permissible if it has the potential to achieve compassionate outcomes in the form of saving innocent lives.
Preface
Acknowledgments
1. Introduction: Overview of the Torture Debate
2. Torture: Reality and Legal Position
3. The Moral Status of Torture
4. The Slippery Slope Illusion
5. Life-saving Torture Is a Humane Practice
6.Torture Is Effective
7. Torture Is not Antidemocratic
8. The Real Divide: Where Responsibility Starts and Ends
9. Why the Torture Debate Really Matters (And Why a “Meta-analysis” of the Torture Debate Supports Our Argument)
10. Conclusion: The End Justifies the Means
Notes
Index
Voir
Preface
Acknowledgments
1. Introduction: Overview of the Torture Debate
2. Torture: Reality and Legal Position
3. The Moral Status of Torture
4. The Slippery Slope Illusion
5. Life-saving Torture Is a Humane Practice
6.Torture Is Effective
7. Torture Is not Antidemocratic
8. The Real Divide: Where Responsibility Starts and Ends
9. Why the Torture Debate Really Matters (And Why a “Meta-analysis” of the Torture Debate Supports Our Argument)
10. Conclusion: The End Justifies the Means
Notes
Index
Publié par
Date de parution
24 mai 2007
Nombre de lectures
0
EAN13
9780791479674
Langue
English
TORTURE When the U n t h i n k a b l e Is Morally Permissible
Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke
TORTURE
This page intentionally left blank.
TORTURE
When the Unthinkable Is Morally Permissible
Mirko Bagaric Julie Clarke
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK PRESS
Published by State University of New York Press, Albany
© 2007 State University of New York
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission. No part of this book may be stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means including electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission in writing of the publisher.
For information, contact State University of New York Press, Albany, NY www.sunypress.edu
Production by Marilyn P. Semerad Marketing by Fran Keneston
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Bagaric, Mirko. Torture : when the unthinkable is morally permissible / Mirko Bagaric, Julie Clarke. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN13: 9780791471531 (hardcover : alk. paper) ISBN13: 9780791471548 (pbk.: alk. paper) 1. Torture—Moral and ethical aspects. 2. Torture—United States. 3. Political prisoners— Abuse of—United States. 4. Human rights. I. Clarke, Julie, 1952– II. Title.
HV8593B35 2007 364.6'7—dc22
2006027537
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Preface
Contents
Acknowledgments
Introduction: Overview of the Torture Debate
Torture: Reality and Legal Position
The Moral Status of Torture
The Slippery Slope Illusion
Lifesaving Torture Is a Humane Practice
Torture Is Effective
Torture Is Not Antidemocratic
The Real Divide: Where Responsibility Starts and Ends
Why the Torture DebateReallyMatters (And Why a “Metaanalysis” of the Torture Debate Supports Our Argument)
Conclusion: The End Justifies the Means
Notes
Index
v
vii
xiii
1
2
4
4
9
1
1
9
5
3
63
6
7
8
8
9
5
5
7
113
This page intentionally left blank.
Preface
The following opinion piece, which one of us had published in The Age(Melbourne) andSydney Morning Heraldon May 17, 2005 caused worldwide outrage.
THE CASE FOR TORTURE
“Our reflex rejection of torture needs to be replaced by recognition that it can be a moral means of saving lives.” Recent events stemming from the “war on terror ism” have highlighted the prevalence of torture. This is despite the fact that torture is almost universally deplored. The formal prohibition against torture is absolute—there are no exceptions to it. The belief that torture is always wrong is, how ever, misguided and symptomatic of the alarmist and reflexive responses typically emanating from social commentators. It is this type of absolutist and short sighted rhetoric that lies at the core of many distorted moral judgments that we as a community continue to make, resulting in an enormous amount of injustice and suffering in our society and far beyond our borders. Torture is permissible where the evidence suggests that this is the only means, due to the immediacy of the situation, to save the life of an innocent person. The
vii
viii
Preface
reason that torture in such a case is defensible and nec essary is because the justification manifests from the closest thing we have to an inviolable right: the right to selfdefense, which of course extends to the defense of another. Given the choice between inflicting a rela tively small level of harm on a wrongdoer and saving an innocent person, it is verging on moral indecency to prefer the interests of the wrongdoer. The analogy with selfdefense is sharpened by considering the hostagetaking scenario, where a wrongdoer takes a hostage and points a gun to the hostage’s head, threatening to kill the hostage unless a certain (unreasonable) demand is met. In such a case it is not only permissible but desirable for police to shoot (and kill) the wrongdoer if they get a “clear shot.” This is especially true if it’s known that the wrongdoer has a history of serious violence, and hence is more likely to carry out the threat. It is indefensible to suggest that there should be an absolute ban on torture. There is no logical or moral difference between this scenario and one where there is overwhelming evidence that a wrongdoer has kid napped an innocent person and informs police that the victim will be killed by a cooffender if certain demands are not met. In the hostage scenario, it is universally accepted that it is permissible to violate the right to life of the aggressor to save an innocent person. How can it be wrong to violate an even less important right (the right to physical integrity) by torturing the aggressor in order to save a life in the second scenario? There are three main counterarguments to even the above limited approval of torture. The first is the slippery slope argument: if you start allowing torture in a limited context, the situations in which it will be used will increase.
PREFACE
This argument is not sound in the context of tor ture. First, the floodgates are already open—torture is used widely, despite the absolute legal prohibition against it. Amnesty International has recently reported that it had received, during 2003, reports of torture and illtreatment from 132 countries, including the United States, Japan, and France. It is, in fact, arguable that it is the existence of an unrealistic absolute ban that has driven torture beneath the radar of accounta bility, and that legalization in very rare circumstances would in fact reduce instances of it. The second main argument is that torture will dehumanize society. This is no more true in relation to torture than it is with selfdefense, and in fact the con trary is true. A society that elects to favor the interests of wrongdoers over those of the innocent, when a choice must be made between the two, is in need of serious ethical rewiring. A third counterargument is that we can never be totally sure that torturing a person will in fact result in us saving an innocent life. This, however, is the same situation as in all cases of selfdefense. To revisit the hostage example, the hostagetaker‘s gun might in fact be empty, yet it is still permissible to shoot. As with any decision, we must decide on the best evidence at the time. Torture in order to save an innocent person is the only situation where it is clearly justifiable. This means that the recent highprofile incidents of torture, apparently undertaken as punitive measures or in a bid to acquire information where there was no evi dence of an immediate risk to the life of an innocent person, were reprehensible. Will a reallife situation actually occur where the only option is between torturing a wrongdoer and saving an innocent person? Perhaps not. However, a
ix
