Alan Dershowitz and others have argued that there are scenarios and conditions which make state-sanctioned torture morally justified, maybe even required. Hypothetical scenarios such as one in which a nuclear device is hidden in NY city are often used in such arguments; it is claimed torture might be needed to find the bomb’s location before it is detonated. It could also be argued that, if there were evidence of an upcoming attack like Hamas’ on October 7th, torture of a suspect would be justified in order to get information that might derail the attack.
Others argue that sanctioning torture is always a mistake. The Field Manual used by U.S. military interrogators prohibits “coercive techniques” as they produce “low quality intelligence” which includes “unreliable results” and may prohibit subsequent collection of more valuable information. Bob Brecher has argued that the hypothetical scenarios Dershowitz and others use to justify torture always contain conditions that do not occur in real life and that allowing state-sanctioned torture creates a number of morally untenable situations. Consider, for example, what it would be like to train individuals to fill the role of torturers.
What are the arguments and who is right? Join us in PHL 216 Violence and Nonviolence on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons next semester to explore these questions. (TR 2:30-3:45) Contact Dr. Paul (linda.paul@wilkes.edu) for more information.