is torture ever acceptable-Ethically?

Answer 1

My natural instinct is to say no, but I was thinking exactly the same recently when I saw a programme about drug dealing cartels. For instance, in order to gain information from informants, the British Home Office has recently admitted shielding notorious Turkish heroin barons in the last decade. Scraps of information have filtered through, but when you actyually consider the mayhem these people cause (and that the major player in this specific case, finally convicted last year, was a great fan of horrifically torturing those who crossed him), then a bit of "his own medicine" may have been a far speedier way of getting the job done. Granted people may give false info, but they would do this anyway.
But despite an absolute lack of regard for the rights of such terrible people, I cannot say the use of torture is exactly an appelaing prospect for any civilised society.

Answer 2

Only in a very rare and extreme case could you see torture as ethical. Hypothetically, someone is holding out information that could directly save many lives. This person simply refuses to share this valuable information, and would rather let all those people die. Then I could understand using torture. However, this is only valid if the person in question actually knows the information, not "just in case". But even in this extreme case it is hard to justify after the fact. There will always be doubts and people saying "there must have been another way". And where the whole thing falls apart is if the subject is tortured after the information is revealed, or if the torturer enjoys the process.

Answer 3

If you are the one doing the torturing, it seems ethical to you, because the information may save lives on your side. This is the current excuse. Ethics are not defined, and each person has their own set of ethics. The U.S. and many countries signed a Treaty, the Geneva convention. All signatories agreed not to use torture,and the term torture is defined. Although the definition is subject to interpretation, physical pain definitely falls under the term.
Ask yourself, if someone had information that would save the life of your child, and without that information your child would surely die, what would you do to get that information?

Answer 4

This would depend on the philosophical background you come from.
The US was based on men who followed the "natural rights" perspective, that all men had certain rights regardless of circumstances. They would look unfavorably on torture, no matter what circumstances.
The Utilitarian school of thought follows that whatever benefits the most people is good. So torture could be used if it would save large numbers of people. But this is slippery, because one could make the argument that not using torture makes the society better over time, so a torture ban benefits the most people.
Religion could condone torture, because whatever the deity says (or one person's interpretation of the holy word) is what is "good". However, very few modern religions would condone torture except in the most extreme sects. For example, most religions "of the book" (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) teach to "love thy neighbor"; not very fitting with torture.
The last philosophy would be the philosophy of self. Whatever you want is "good". However, everyone else wants as well, so it's a very tricky. Most people don't follow this philosophy.

Answer 5

Sometimes...In extreme situations the ends justify the means, if the ends are just then the means are just.if more lives are saved or protected than are harmed (say 1-2 versus thousands) then whatever had to be done was right.