The Case for Torture :: Michael Levin Ethics

I seek to provide an analysis on Michael Levin's article on "The Case for Torture." This article mainly articulates that the use of torture is necessary in order to safeguard the lives of the many innocents and is justifiable. In his given example, he argues that the mass murder of millions of innocent people by a terrorist justifies the use of torture to stop such an extreme barbaric act. Indeed this is a question of moral on the action of inflicting pain. Take a look at the scenario of a war. We will never say that it is immoral to let out soldiers kill or inflict pain on the enemies in a war because we know that it is the only way to safeguard our nation's sovereignty and the lives of our people. The motives are very clear as mentioned. Thus it is justifiable to let our soldiers kill those who intended to harm the lives of our citizens. When a terrorist has clearly intended to harm the lives of millions, why is it not justified then, to inflict pain on the terrorist, with the mot ive of wanting to protect the lives of many more innocent people? Surely it is! Take a look at this argument: Constitution seeks to protect the interest of one's rights. To torture a person is to breach that protection of interest. Therefore, Torture is unconstitutional. Torturing is however, unconstitutional only when the motives behind it are deemed reasonably immoral. We should then of course not inflict pain mainly just to force the other party to confess the truth to a matter if he does not wish to. But what if the truth will then lead to the location of say, a timed-bomb, which will then be diffused in time to prevent an entire office block to collapse, bringing with it a thousand or more lives? Should the constitution then continue to protect the terrorist against such torture? The author said that millions of lives outweigh constitutionality. Surely it is not justiable for a constitution to uphold the rights of a terrorist, but at the expense of the thousands that, t oo, holds the right to live never asked to be placed in such danger. Again, the moral of one's action must be reviewed in such cases. On a personal note, I feel that to sacrifice one that is convicted, in exchanged for the many innocents, is a permissible one.