Let me preface this by saying that I do not in any way support the use of torture. I am merely pointing out an idea.
Say that you have a confirmed terrorist in your custody. You know for a fact (after a thorough trial with much evidence and a confession confirming that he did it ) that he has killed some number of people. You also know for a fact that he knows of a bomb which will go off in a few days somewhere in the city.
Can torture to find out information about the bomb be an ethically-justified tool in this situation?
Well, in a libertarian justice system, we aim for restitution, right? Obviously, once the man kills someone he cannot give them back his life. So he “owes” a few lives. Well, if by torture a few lives may yet be “saved,” would said torture and acquisition of information be a just restitution of lives? Or is this not a correct comparison because the lives are now being given to someone else? What if the people who had already been killed had written down in a will that in case of murder they allow their “life restitution” to be given to someone else?
I think a lot of people would see this kind of thing as justified or at least understandable. But the problem when government gets involved is that it becomes a mandates and then they go over board and they don’t just torture people for extreme life and death scenarios. They do it for any reason what so ever.
So in a life and death scenario, like in the tv show 24, where an agent goes rogue and risks the consequences of torturing someone against saving the life of millions of people, then sure. But in reality they will, eventually be torturing people for any reason, drug dealers, government dissidents the list is endless knowing the track record of the state.
So i do not agree with the social acceptability of torture but i would understand if an agent risked the consequences of punishment for torture to save people and i would understand if it was successful and he saved millions of people that he was let off lightly. But that is completely different than practically encouraging its use on national TV.
I meant torture in a libertarian society.
I am aware that is what you meant.
I was just stating why it is more of a problem with government and went on to say that i do not agree with the social acceptability of torture. But would understand if someone risked the consequences of a reprimand etc to save the life of millions. Without it being illegal, people would far too easily resort to it and i am not comfortable with that.
In a libertarian society based on what i have read, torture would be illegal, is that i am trying to say.