Midterm 3 Notes - Final Exam Notes Henry Shue: Torture...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Final Exam Notes Henry Shue: Torture (1977) The use of torture is widespread and growing Argument: a comparison between some types of killing in combat and some types of torture shows how torture is morally worse than killing Pro-torture Argument 1. Just combat killing is total destruction of a person 2. Torture usually only involves partial destruction 3. Total destruction is worse than partial destruction 4. Just combat killing is a greater harm 5. Just combat killing is sometimes okay 6. Torture is sometimes morally permissible Shue: this argument is mistaken because it assumes that the only consideration relevant to moral permissibility is the amount of harm done Assault upon the defenseless The jus in bello principle of not attacking noncombatants is plausibly rooted in the general moral principle which prohibits assaults upon the defenseless Shue suggests that this principle is derived from the sense of a fair fight [But is this right? Why not place greater emphasis on the fact that the defenseless pose us no threat?] Torture with constraints? Perhaps the tortured is not defenseless if he has a mode of compliance that will end the torture [ interrogation torture ] However, much of contemporary torture shares a feature with terrorism. Its aim is to intimidate other people besides the torture. This terroristic torture clearly violates the Kantian principle against using persons merely as means Interrogational torture In theory, may provide the mode of compliance, but in practice, no constraint is to be counted upon Torture obliterates the distinction between those who have relevant information and those who do not Morally permissible torture? Consider the nuclear bomb in Paris is torture permissible then? But one should be careful not to make ethical policies based on extraordinary circumstances. Allowing for the possibility of torture in extraordinary cases makes it likely to occur in usual ones The justified torturer may violate the law in an act akin to civil disobedience Luban: Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb (2005) Torture used to be against American values- see the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. 9/11 changed this Liberalism is a view that believes in limited government and the importance of human dignity and individual rights. This straddles the divide between the political left and right Ticking bomb scenarios seemingly provide a liberal defense of torture Claim: Ticking bomb stories are built on a set of assumptions that amount to intellectual fraud It leads to a torture culture Everyone thinking about torture begins and ends with the ticking bomb case A 1995 Al Qaeda bombing plot was apparently thwarted by torture- although the torture was so severe that the interrogators were surprised he survived to give the information The interrogators did not know of the plot before weeks of torture that very well may have killed the subject...
View Full Document

Page1 / 8

Midterm 3 Notes - Final Exam Notes Henry Shue: Torture...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online