The Problem of Torture: Not a Moral Dilemma

Walzer insightfully points out that the decisions politicians make have much greater magnitude than the decisions of other citizens because they represent many people rather than just themselves. Or as Spiderman puts it: “With great power comes great responsibility.” I’m with Walzer (and Spiderman) up to this point. But then Walzer goes on to argue that the magnitude and the nature of these decisions can create for the politician—this is where I differ with Walzer—a moral dilemma, in which the politician would behave unethically no matter which alternative he chooses. To illustrate his point, Walzer describes a situation in which a government official is given the choice whether or not to torture a criminal who knows the location of bombs that could potentially kill innocent civilians. His choices: to either a) commit a moral wrong by torturing the criminal or b) commit a moral wrong by allowing innocent civilians to die.

Really Walzer? Would we hold the official responsible for the civilians he didn’t save by not torturing the criminal? Even if we assume that torture would have prevented the tragedy, which we have no way of knowing (in fact, some evidence suggests that it is counter-productive), surely it is not fair to hold the official responsible for the deaths he fails to prevent by refusing to act unethically. As long as the official carries out all ethical means within his power to prevent the tragedy—investigate the situation thoroughly and evacuate likely targets, for instance—the official’s hands are completely clean in the event that the bombing does take place.