Justifying Evil

Michael Levin's "The Case for Torture"

Ken Welsh's Torture by Fire on the Wheel

"There [are] situations in which torture is not merely permissible but morally mandatory."

Most people agree with the statement that torture is morally wrong. It's difficult to justify inflicting pain on another human being, especially to an excessive degree. Still, in his essay "The Case for Torture," Michael Levin sets out to do just that.

"Torture is justified in extreme cases."

It would be beneficial to specify that Levin does not advocate for torture as punishment but rather as a means to an end. He does not suggest that torture is an acceptable punishment for wrongs already committed but rather a tool to be used to prevent future wrongs from taking place. He also outlines that he approves the usage of torture in only very select circumstances, such as when a terrorist has set lives at risk and torture could grant immediate possession of necessary information. 

In the case of terrorism, Levin suggests that there is no moral impediment to the usage of torture as a means to gain information or prevent crime because those committing acts of terrorism or infringing upon national security by breaking the law have already given up the standards or moral justice. They have abandoned societal morality and the laws that protect the freedoms of others, and thereby, they have no right to have their own life protected by the laws, rights, and morality that they abandoned. 

It is with these restrictions, exceptions, and disclaimers outlined that Levin makes the argument that there are circumstances in which torture is "not merely permissible, but morally mandatory."

"Torturing the terrorist is unconstitutional? Probably. But millions of lives surely outweigh constitutionality. Torture is barbaric? Mass murder is far more barbaric."

Torture is objectively wrong. Enacting deliberate harm on another person, harm which injures them both physically and mentally, to punish them, is something that has stood through all human history, but the Constitution of the United States protects against "cruel and unusual punishment." The "torture" carries with it implications of punishment that is excessive in comparison to its crime, or that is used to coerce a person and is thereby considered cruel and unusual. 

However, while torture is objectively bad, murder is also objectively bad. The taking of another person's life goes against the Ten Commandments of the Bible as well as the Constitution of the United States, and it is undoubtedly true that most people would agree that murder is wrong (disregarding arguments about the death penalty and abortion). 

If torture is considered wrong, and murder is also considered wrong, do two wrongs make a right? Does torturing the murderer equal a net positive? Not necessarily. If anything, responding with evil for evil only creates more evil, and using a wrongful punishment for a wrongful crime doesn't create the right outcome. Instead of one party committing wrong, there are two: the criminal and the prosecutor. 

One evil shouldn't be used to punish another evil, but can one evil be used to prevent another? In the case Levin argues for, should torture (objectively wrong) be used to prevent mass murder (also objectively wrong)? One evil seems better than two, though zero is ideal. This circles back to Machiavelli's age-old argument of whether the ends justify the means. While torture is objectively bad, if it is a means to a positive outcome (preventing the death of innocent people), does it become okay? The initial reaction is that no, evil does not become good when it achieves a good outcome. But I'd be willing to bet that when put to the test in extreme circumstances, most people's convictions about ends being unable to justify means fall apart.

"The decision to use torture is a matter of balancing innocent lives against the means needed to save them."

Most people would agree that lying is objectively a bad thing. But if you were in the midst of the Civil War and were hiding runaway slaves in your basement, would you not lie to those who came asking if you knew where they were? Would you lie to protect the lives of others, or would you tell the truth because it is objectively the right thing to do?

Generally speaking, we can all agree that murder, torture, and lying are all wrong. The reality is life is a lot more nuanced than "generally speaking." While lying is wrong, in the situation described above, telling the truth would lead to the death of several people. The moral laws that we believe are valuable and rigid, but when put to the test, they show exceptions and the necessity to be looked at with a nuanced lens. 

It's like the philosophical train track dilemma or trolley problem. If five people are strapped to the tracks on one path, and one on the other, which way do you turn the train? All lives are valuable, but can you justify the murder of one person to save the lives of five? 

Levin's argument follows just the same line of logic. If harming one person can save ten, twenty, or a thousand, what's stopping us? In the case of the terrorist, he has, as Levin argues, given up traditional morality, so why should we respect the moral laws he disregards? Are we driven by a necessity to be the hero or to be morally secure? It's not very heroic to let thousands die at the hands of a terrorist when you could have prevented it. 

"If the police can by torture save those who would otherwise die at the hands of kidnappers and terrorists, they must."

In this sense, Levin's argument makes perfect sense. In certain extreme situations, torture is morally justifiable. However, in reality, it's very unlikely those circumstances will ever happen. It's highly unlikely that any average person will have a terrorist at their hands and have the ability to draw out from them the code to disarm a bomb, or the way to redirect a plane, with no other possible means but that of torture. While we can ponder and justify hypothetically, it's unlikely that the circumstances that would justify torture will ever occur in everyday life. Still, there is value in pondering on such moral dilemmas, as while we may never need them in our own lives, terrorism is a real threat to many nations, and having a thorough, well-rounded opinion on the limits by which governments, defense agencies, and police or military forces should be limited is a necessary component to a morally strong society.