Well, to start off I want to say that this Bowden article was really eye opening. He definitely pointed out some methods of torture that I couldn't comprehend(like the alligator clamp one...) while also offering not so painful alternatives. The examples he gave of Koubi and Giorgio seemed to be less physically/mentally harmful than the other more extreme examples. This, he argues, is because these are the rare breeds of people who can actually succeed in non-violent(or at least less-violent) torture.
Now one of the main issues, as pointed out in the second article, is the difference between "coercion" and "torture". Using the same emphasis on 'severe', it is hard to distinguish between what should be considered torture, and thus illegal, and what is considered coercion. A good point is brought up however about the legality of even coercion, and how certain international laws within certain circumstances(i.e. the Geneva Conventions with POWs) can prevent this. I guess that is the question: Is there ever a form of punishment which will defer harm, by means of torture(or killing if you want to tackle this)?
Torture, however physically or mentally harmful it is, is better than death, isn't it? Unless you get into divine retribution and the afterlife, you cannot argue that you are better dead than alive. Thus, couldn't you argue that because torture leads to the prevention of death in most cases, or at least an attempt at it, arguing by utilitarian grounds, it is just? There seems to be a large gap between killing people and harming them, and to what extent the harm is justified. Any thoughts on this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with a lot of what you said, Axl, but I think if you pondered it a bit longer you would change your mind about whether it's ALWAYS better to be alive than dead, even outside any afterlife beliefs. I know if I had the choice between being tortured--or even "coerced"--for the foreseeable future with no hope of escape, I'd definitely choose to die.
ReplyDeleteTo me, if I look at it outside mysticism or spirituality, death seems likely to be exactly what it is on the surface: the end. I think it's pretty likely that many people would think "the end" is better than a life full of torment.
Now, honestly I've never experienced anything I consider to be "severe" pain. I've broken bones, torn ligaments and cartilage in both my knees, and almost drowned, but none of these were (I imagine) anything close to the kind of psychological or physical pain one could be put through during torture. This means I cannot REALLY say whether a life of extreme pain is better than death. But I think you could make a pretty good non-spiritual argument that death could sometimes be preferable to such a life.
Now, whether I've changed your mind or not, do you think this perspective changes your argument about whether torture is justifiable? Or is it justifiable on different grounds, too?