far better than harming thousands. However, I think there is no scenario where it is acceptable to torture innocent children. There are many different types of torture but they can be broken down into two categories: emotional and physical. Emotional torture is when you psychologically effect the victim’s mind and soul. This can be shown through isolating someone, threatening him or her, humiliating him or her and scaring him or her. Emotional torture can harm an individual just as much as physical torture. Manipulating someone’s emotions causes the individual to question his or her self worth.
In Unthinkable, H, strapped the terrorist, Younger, to a chair. Across from him, H sat down his ex wife, whom he still cared for. H forced the ex wife to tell Younger that she still loved him. As she is speaking he starts to get emotional. However, on the spot H, kills his wife right in front of him. Although H did not physically harm Younger, he imposed mental and emotional anguish by watching the love of his life be murdered in front of him. Not only did he have to watch his lover be murdered, but also he has to live with the guilt of her death being his fault.
She wouldn’t have been brought in or murdered if he didn’t set up the bombs or if he simply told the agents where he planted them. Younger went under a tremendous amount of physical torture between, being tied up, having wind blown in his face for over twenty four hours and having limbs chopped off. However, he was far more disturbed/effected by his ex being murdered and his kids feeling in danger. When he was being tortured he felt as if he deserved what was being done to him. However, when his ex-wife and kids where being harmed, it was out of his control and he felt useless.
From Younger’s perspective, emotional torture seemed to be far worse than physical, because he felt that his wife and children were innocent and didn’t deserve to be brutalized. Moreover, all he could do was watch helplessly, unable to shield the ones he loved. Another controversial idea the movie raises is if we rationally agree with the idea of torture, would we as individuals be comfortable with torturing, or would you rather someone else do the dirty work? Many people in the movie thought the only solution was torturing the terrorist who planted the bombs, because the time was ticking and many innocent lives where in danger.
However, only one person in the room, H, felt comfortable preforming the actual torture on the terrorist (Unthinkable). H did not just keep the terrorist awake for many hours and deprive him of sleep and food, he would saw his fingers off one by one, repeatedly stab him and pull out his teeth. I personally think it is justified to torture someone if they are withholding information that could harm numerous innocent people. However, I would never feel comfortable preforming the act of torture on anyone.
This begets the question, if you are not the person preforming the torture but you condone it, are you really that innocent? I think condoning the torture and doing it are almost equivalent because both parties are agreeing that it is acceptable to be harming the individual. The only difference is one person is carrying out the action. Morally, I could never harm an individual that severely, even if they were withholding information that could save many lives. In examining this debate, one can also question whether we have an obligation to act morally when the accused has not done anything wrong?
This is a reprehensible argument, as one’s morals should not be predicated on someone else’s actions. Consequently, torture should never be used as a payback or as a vehicle for the misuse of power. The idea of torture also raises a logistical question: will you truly get the right answers by torturing? If someone is being tortured against their will, won’t they simply say anything in order to make the pain stop? A victim might provide false information just so that he or she does not have to continue undergoing the agonizing torment.
Also, between not eating and not sleeping, some people become delusional and may not necessarily be able to discriminate between the truth and a lie. Furthermore, by investigators asking leading questions the person being tortured may start to believe the stories he or she is hearing and give the investigators faulty information. Although torture might be rational, there are many opportunities for the torturer to say false information due to the circumstances. I think torture has to be considered in context because there is no universal rule concerning torture and there is no chance one rule can apply to all situations.
I think if the person is being tortured and has done something wrong, has endangered many innocent lives or is directly involved with a heinous crime, then it would be rational to use torture. However, I am a little skeptical if the person being tortured will become delusional and say something incorrect. Nevertheless, torture is never moral. Moreover, if people torture others purely for their own benefit, then that is treating humans as objects, “mere means” to an end (Bailey). Torture may be rational in some cases, however, it is never morally justifiable, as it is inflicting emotional and physical harm and treating humans as objects.