In 1911, the creator of the article on ‘Torture’ within the Encyclopaedia Britannica was capable of state that ‘the entire topic is now one in every of solely historic curiosity so far as Europe is anxious’ (Waldron, 2012, p.187). Torture’s relegation to mere historic curiosity didn’t final, nevertheless. The controversy surrounding the ethical permissibility of torture preoccupied the British all through the Nineteen Sixties and 70s, the Israelis all through the Eighties and 90s and has continued to characteristic in philosophical discourse since 9/11 and the following Conflict on Terror (Gross, 2010, p.122; Neuhauser, Stoecker, 2014, p.302). I’ll argue that using torture isn’t morally permissible, principally due to its assault on and destruction of human dignity and autonomy. Defining what constitutes torture stays a vexed query, nevertheless, I’ll use David Luban’s (2014, p.450) definition that torture is the ‘assertion of the torturer’s limitless energy and the sufferer’s absolute helplessness’ achieved via the ‘infliction of extreme ache or struggling on a sufferer within the torturer’s custody or management’. Firstly, I’ll lay out my argument for torture’s ethical impermissibly on account of its degradation of human dignity and autonomy, adopted by an exploration as to why such degradation must be impermissible while killing in warfare is permissible. I’ll then discover the objections to this argument, particularly the ticking-bomb terrorist hypothetical, to which I’ll provide a reply. I’ll then discover the argument for torture’s ethical permissibility via legal responsibility and the authorized mechanics via which this may very well be facilitated, earlier than providing a remaining reply to those arguments.
I argue that torture isn’t morally permissible on account of its violation of dignity and autonomy, this being unacceptable when dwelling in an ethical and simply society. I argue we must always uphold an ordinary of morality that affords all people a enough degree of dignity and company, a degree that torture subverts. The ache and struggling inflicted throughout torture is critical, nevertheless, it’s this ache along side the entire powerlessness and subservience to a malign enemy that destroys the sufferer’s autonomy and dignity (Luban, p.449). The primacy of those values and the ‘inviolable nature of human dignity belies any justification’ for torture (Sung, 2003, p.199). Torture victims are compelled into experiencing ranges of disgust, disgrace and subservience that no ethical society ought to inflict upon one other human being (Hartogh, 2014, p.206). Torture destroys the integrity and company of the sufferer’s personhood, persona and life expertise, lowering their existence to ‘a type of anti-life’ (Luban, Shue, 2012, p.863; Sussman, 2006, p.230). This deontological view rejects the consequentialist outcomes of torture, however declares torture morally impermissible on grounds that these ethical guidelines must be utilized to even probably the most heinous of people, as it’s a precept of humanity that we respect these basic values in all folks (Leidner, 2018, p.159; Meisels, 2010, p.195). I additionally argue that the instrumentalisation of the torture sufferer, utilizing the sufferer purely as a way, is immoral to a level that it shouldn’t be permissible below any circumstances. This can be a broadly Kantian view that the sufferer turns into ‘a struggling instrument of the torturer’, having ache inflicted upon them solely for the aim of destroying their will and for his or her continued use as a way for the torturer’s ends (Juratowitch, 2008, p.87).
This argument elicits the query of how one can suggest absolutely the ethical impermissibility of torture while declaring killing in warfare morally permissible. I’d argue that torture may be morally impermissible while not mandating absolute pacifism, primarily due to the basic distinction between how torture and killing in warfare impinges human dignity. Dignity is a basic side of human life that should be afforded to all, nevertheless, as a lot as killing destroys life, it doesn’t by necessity destroy dignity (Shue, 1978, p.125). On a battlefield, there’s a basic rule, each morally and legally, that one can not hurt those that are defenceless. Nevertheless, torture necessitates the defencelessness of its sufferer and as such, it can’t be thought-about below the identical ethical and normative pointers. Additional, on the battlefield, there’s a diploma of reciprocity whereby combatants have a good probability and skill to defend themselves towards threats (Roth, 2005, p.390). Torture, nevertheless, breaches this reciprocity and condemns the sufferer to a degree of degradation and dehumanisation that’s particularly merciless as though killing takes a life, torture abuses it (Ignatieff, 2004, p.137). This abuse is especially morally abhorrent because it doesn’t simply degrade and debase the sufferer’s humanity, it forces the sufferer to turn out to be complicit in their very own debasement and an confederate within the destruction of their very own dignity and company (Conroy, 2000, p.169; Randall, Lutz, 1991, p.109; Basoglu, 1992, p.205).
The extent of this abuse is finest elucidated by David Sussman (2005), whose Neo-Kantian view argues that torture not solely violates dignity and company, it turns this company towards itself and forces the sufferer to turn out to be complicit in their very own violation, that means that torture isn’t just the destruction of fundamental humanity however the compelled self-betrayal of oneself. This degree of abuse on fundamental values and enforced self-abuse shouldn’t be permitted in an ethical society. Sussman (p.19) argues that torture is particularly insidious because it goes past simply disrespecting these values, it’s a ‘deliberate perversion’ of them, turning a person’s dignity and company towards itself. Torture forces the tortured to turn out to be an lively half in their very own degradation, for instance, in Abu Ghraib, torture victims have been compelled to masturbate in entrance of their captors, displaying their most personal of ideas and acts to others (Sussman, p.22). Troopers can kill one another in fight, they’ll even kill their prisoners, nevertheless, solely a torture sufferer is compelled to supply up their very own intimacy and sense of self for use towards them, additional contributing to the intense destruction of dignity and autonomy that torture inflicts (ibid). Subsequently, torture must be thought-about below a special ethical and normative framework to lively fight. Its diploma of cruelty and destruction is so extreme, together with the infliction of self-betrayal and complicity in a single’s personal degradation, that it warrants absolute ethical impermissibility.
The first objection to this argument stems from the consequentialist custom, most notably represented by the ticking-bomb terrorist hypothetical (TBT). Jeremy Bentham formulated the primary situation that resembled a TBT hypothetical, with Jean Lartéguey popularising the situation within the Nineteen Sixties (Allhoff, 2012, p.89; Davies, 2012, p.3; Hassner, 2018, p.90). The TBT situation is available in many kinds, nevertheless, virtually all invariably contain a captive terrorist who has data of the situation of a bomb that may go off and kill quite a few folks, with torture doubtlessly revealing its location (Farrell, 2013). The argument follows that permitting quite a few folks to die, by not torturing the terrorist, is a far larger hurt than the hurt inflicted on the terrorist. This can be a purely consequentialist argument that ignores the immorality of the act of torture and focuses completely on the outcomes, disregarding the ethical implications of torture and specializing in a utilitarian cost-benefit evaluation. An extension of this utilitarian method may be seen in Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke’s (2005, p.611) 5 situations that, if met, would make torture ‘morally defensible’, together with the variety of lives in danger, the extent of wrongdoing of the potential torture sufferer, and the immediacy of the hurt posed.
Richard Posner (2002, p.30) argues that there was a protracted historical past of suspending human rights at occasions of extreme emergencies, particularly when many lives are at stake, with the TBT situation offering simply one other occasion through which human values and rights that will usually be revered may be violated for the larger good. This has led to torture being labelled the ‘lesser of two evils’, with torture being morally permissible and needed if the potential good was for the good thing about the general public at giant (Gert, 1969, p.623; Parry, 2004, p.160). This, nevertheless, results in an ethical dilemma, whether or not to respect the appropriate of the possible torture sufferer to not be tortured, or to guard the harmless civilians’ lives. Michael Walzer (1973) places ahead a Neo-Machiavellian argument whereby these ready of authority have a duty to ‘soiled their palms’ and sanction torture for the sake of their fellow residents. As such, torture in these eventualities turns into morally permissible, nevertheless, its permissibility is right down to the truth that it’s excusable, not justifiable.
My response to the TBT argument is threefold, initially primarily based on the implications of the consequentialist logic, secondly, primarily based on the unrealistic nature of the TBT hypothetical, and thirdly on the immorality of utilizing such a hypothetical. The TBT’s consequentialist logic implies that those that favour this method should legitimately take into account ‘as a lot torture, on as many innocents, as is required to keep away from larger hurt’, thereby eliminating their means to have ‘any ethical compass impartial of outcomes’ (Juratowitch, 2008, p.83-4). Additional, the TBT’s deal with utilitarian outcomes neglects to account for the ‘increased pains’ that torture inflicts, together with psychological impacts resembling dread, disgrace and humiliation (Twining, Paskins, 1978; Randall, Lutz, 1991, p.28-30). The infliction of those ‘increased pains’ is what facilitates the destruction of dignity and autonomy and condemns torture to its ethical impermissibility, an element that the consequentialist fails to recognise.
Secondly, I argue that the TBT argument must be faraway from all philosophical consideration totally as its incapability to bear any resemblance to actuality renders the hypothetical and its implications meaningless. The hypothetical’s premises make it close to unattainable for a TBT situation to ever truly happen; we may by no means ensure of the premises upon which it’s based with the actually that TBT necessitates (Mayerfield, 2008, p.114; Schepple, p.325). I’d argue that this leads the argument to fall into the deductive fallacy, whereby its conclusions are invalid because of the reliance on empirically questionable premises (Bufacchi, Arrigo, 2006, p.360). Hypotheticals can ‘clear away the messiness of the actual world’, nevertheless, the readability that the TBT hypothetical calls for the viewers to subscribe to features a set of premises and false assumptions that quantity to ‘mental fraud’ (Mayerfield, p.113; Luban, p.45). As such, I argue we must always disqualify the TBT argument and its conclusions from consideration, particularly as we’re conscious of the truth of the destruction of the sufferer’s humanity by way of torture.
Thirdly, it’s immoral to incorporate the TBT argument in concerns of torture’s ethical permissibility. The immorality of the TBT hypothetical stems from its manipulation of its viewers because it conveys an ‘incomplete and one-sided image of actuality’, through which the sufferer’s humanity is ignored and supressed with a purpose to deal with the intentionally crafted utilitarian outcomes (Thaler, 2018, p.105). This dehumanisation detracts from the humanity of the sufferer and makes authorising torture a morally engaging choice. This manipulation is compounded by ‘idealisation’ – the including of constructive options to the hypothetical – resembling the flexibility to save lots of tons of or hundreds of harmless lives, to induce the hypothetical’s viewers into supporting torture whereas in actuality, these constructive options are not often, if ever, current (Shue, 2006, p.231). Moreover, the TBT hypothetical is ‘constructed as an ethical romance’ that simplifies the ethical complexities of the scenario ‘with a purpose to enlist sympathy’, inducing the viewers to lend their assist for practices which have implications far wider than the hypothetical acknowledges (Finlay, 2011, p.422, 432). Subscribing to those hypotheticals, due to this fact, is irresponsible and immoral.
Nevertheless, there’s nonetheless an objection to absolutely the ethical impermissibility of torture grounded within the idea of legal responsibility. This has mainly been superior by Jeff McMahan (2008), who argues that the terrorist has a duty for the menace that they pose to harmless people, this duty makes them liable to be tortured if the torture is a way of saving harmless lives from the terrorist’s actions. The terrorist used their autonomy to decide on to pose this menace to harmless lives, in consequence, if torture is the one strategy to save lives then it was his autonomy that has led him to be liable to torture, making the torturer morally excused (ibid, p.99). McMahan (2018, p.200-3) rejects the consequentialist view and bases the permissibility of torture on the legal responsibility of the sufferer to expertise torture that’s utilized in a defensive means, a lot as defensive killing within the face of imminent deadly threats is allowed. This argument was additionally put ahead by Jeremy Bentham, who stated of a legal refusing to cooperate that with ‘each second that he persists in his refusal he commits a recent offence’, arguing that they’re ‘committing an ongoing offence’ that makes them liable to additional ache (Twining, Twining, 1973, p.312; Meisels, p.170). This logic has been adopted by quite a few students who contend that if there’s a enough degree of ‘culpability’ or ‘ethical guilt’ within the potential sufferer, or if the sufferer ‘acted sufficiently unjustly’ and if the torture would ‘save his victims or potential victims’, then it will be morally permissible (Moore, 1989, p.326; Machan, 1990, p.94; Kamm, 2004, p.65; Steinhoff, 2006, p.337).
Though McMahan proposes that torture may be acceptable in precept, he argues that this doesn’t imply people need to be tortured or that it must be authorized observe. Nevertheless, there was one notable argument for the ethical and authorized permissibility of torture; torture warrants. The idea of a torture warrant has primarily been provided by Alan Dershowitz, with an ex ante authorisation of the observe by way of judicial channels. Dershowitz (2002a, p.477) proposes that if the authorities had a suspect who was withholding data that might save lives and there was an inexpensive probability that with using torture such data can be launched, they might go to a choose who may concern a torture warrant. Dershowitz (2002b; 2002c, p.158) acknowledges that this might legitimise torture to a harmful diploma, nevertheless, he states that warrants would solely be issued if there was an ‘absolute must receive rapid data with a purpose to save lives’, and that it will finally result in fewer cases of torture. Different students, resembling Charles Krauthammer (2005), have additionally argued that there must be ‘restricted authorized permission to make use of torture’, so long as it’s saved throughout the outlined institutional constraints and it may yield data which may not be obtainable by way of different means.
Neither of those objections are morally or virtually compelling. Relating to legal responsibility, McMahan (2008, p.104) declares that regardless of his conclusion that torture could also be morally permissible in precept, this ‘is of just about no sensible significance’ as a result of the institutional implications ought to prohibit torture from ever occurring. I’d add that, no matter institutional implications, the sufferer wouldn’t be liable to torture as a result of no human must be liable to the destruction of dignity, autonomy and humanity that torture inflicts, and no human is liable to a degree of self-betrayal and complicity in their very own destruction that torture includes. In response to Dershowitz’s argument, I’d argue that his myopic imaginative and prescient of judicial authority and ethical philosophy makes us select between ‘nationwide safety and human dignity’, and is an oversimplification that ignores the ethical nuances that the controversy requires (Sung, p.209). As well as, Dershowitz’s suggestion of torture warrants would seemingly require an ex parte determination from the choose, with no opposing litigation or argumentation, eliciting doubts over how rigorous, neutral and knowledgeable the choice from the choose may very well be (Roth, p.401).
Nevertheless, probably the most pertinent response to those objections to torture’s ethical impermissibility stems from torture’s destruction of dignity, together with the dignity of the establishments that permit the observe. The English Invoice of Rights of 1689 outlawed torture when it prohibited ‘merciless and strange punishment’, and authorized, political and civic establishments have benefited in consequence (Miller, 2012, p.123). Rejecting the ethical impermissibility of torture means abandoning probably the most basic bases of democracy and decency and by using such merciless means a state can not declare to be primarily based on justice, however on tyranny. It will harm establishments as a result of permitting torture would render establishments constructed on liberal and ethical values complicit within the deliberate destruction of one other human’s dignity and autonomy, being a sensible and symbolic setback for civilisation (Roth, p.405). As Luban (p.48) notes, torture ‘is a microcosm … of the tyrannical political relationships that liberalism hates probably the most’, devaluing the belief in and authority of ‘civil, army and authorized establishments’ (Bufacchi, Arrigo, p.362). Additional, institutionalising torture would destroy the dignity of those that carry it out, as they are going to be subjected to ideas and practices that no particular person with ethical integrity ought to should be uncovered to (Wolfendale, 2006, p.287). It degrades those that carry it out and might trigger irrevocable psychological harm, debasing their humanity and sense of self (Kateb, 2001, p.186; Krulak). As such, even when one accepts there are conceivable eventualities through which torture may very well be morally permissible, it will routinely stop to be acceptable because of the irreconcilable degradation of the establishments that permit it, and by extension, the degradation of the dignity and humanity of those that permit it, carry it out and are subjected to it (Waldron, 2005, p.37).
In conclusion, I argue that torture must be completely morally impermissible due to its influence on probably the most basic parts of humanity, principally, dignity and autonomy. These must be afforded to all people, with torture not solely disrespecting victims’ dignity and autonomy, however destroying them via the self-betrayal and complicity the sufferer is compelled into. Objections to torture’s ethical impermissibility vary from hypothetical justifications to legal responsibility arguments, with the previous being primarily based on immoral and unrealistic logic and the latter not accounting for the extreme destruction of values that torture inflicts. Permitting torture would, by extension, destroy the dignity, integrity and ethical authority of our democratic and liberal establishments, thereby making it an ethical necessity to conclude that using torture isn’t morally permissible.
Allhoff, Fritz, 2012, Terrorism, Ticking Time-Bombs, and Torture: A Philosophical Evaluation (Chicago, IL: College of Chicago Press)
Bagaric, Mirko, Clarke, Julie, 2005, ‘Not Sufficient Official Torture within the World? The Circumstances in Which Torture Is Morally Justifiable’, College of San Francisco Legislation Overview, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 581-616
Basoglu, Metin, 1992, Torture and its Penalties: Present Therapy Approaches (Cambridge: Cambridge College Press)
Bufacchi, Vittorio, Arrigo, Jean, 2006, ‘Torture, Terrorism, and the State: A Refutation of the Ticking-Bomb Argument’, Journal of Utilized Philosophy, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 355–73
Conroy, John, 2000, Unspeakable Acts, Bizarre Individuals: The Dynamics of Torture (Berkeley, CA: College of California Press)
Davies, Jeremy, 2012, ‘The Fireplace-Raisers: Bentham and Torture’, Interdisciplinary Research within the Lengthy Nineteenth Century, Vol. 19, No. 15, pp. 1-25
Dershowitz, Alan, 2002a, Shouting Fireplace: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age (New York Metropolis, NY: Little Brown and Firm)
Dershowitz, Alan, 2002b, ‘Need to torture? Get a warrant’, SFGate. Accessible at: https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Need-to-torture-Get-a-warrant-2880547.php [Accessed on February 2nd 2020]
Dershowitz, Alan, 2002c, Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Menace, Responding to the Problem (New Haven, CT: Yale College Press)
Farrell, Michelle, 2013, The Prohibition of Torture in Distinctive Circumstances (Oxford: Oxford College Press)
Finlay, Christopher, 2011, ‘Soiled Palms and the Romance of the Ticking Bomb Terrorist: a Humean Account,’ Essential Overview of Worldwide Social and Political Philosophy, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 421-442
Gert, Bernard, 1969, ‘Justifying Violence’, The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 66, No. 19, pp. 616-628
Gross, Michael, 2010, Ethical Dilemmas of Trendy Conflict: Torture, Assassination and Blackmail in an Age of Uneven Battle (Cambridge: Cambridge College Press)
Hassner, Ron, 2018, ‘The Fable of the Ticking Bomb’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 83-94
Hartgogh, Govert, 2014, ‘Is Human Dignity the Floor of Human Rights?’, in Duwell, Marcus, Braarvig, Jens, Brownsword, Roger, Mieth, Dietmar, The Cambridge Handbook of Human Dignity: Interdisciplinary Views (Cambridge: Cambridge College Press)
Ignatieff, Michael, 2004, The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror (Princeton, NJ: Princeton College Press)
Juratowitch, Ben, 2008, ‘Torture Is At all times Incorrect’, Public Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 81-90
Kamm, Frances, 2004, ‘Failures of Simply Conflict Idea: Terror, Hurt and Justice’, Ethics, Vol. 114, No. 4, pp. 650-692
Kateb, George, 2001, Human Dignity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard College Press)
Krauthammer, Charles, 2005, ‘The Fact About Torture’, The Washington Examiner. Accessible at: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/the-truth-about-torture [Accessed February 4th 2020]
Krulak, Charles, 2007, ‘It’s Our Cage, Too’, Washington Submit. Accessible at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content material/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051602395.html? [Accessed January 28th 2020]
Leidner, Bernhard, Kardos, Peter, Castano, Emanuele, 2018, ‘The Results of Ethical and Pragmatic Arguments In opposition to Torture on Calls for for Judicial Reform’, Political Psychology, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 143-162
Luban, David, 2005, ‘Liberalism, Torture and the Ticking Bomb,’ Virginia Legislation Overview, Vol. 95, pp. 1425-61
Luban, David, 2014, Torture, Energy, and Legislation (Cambridge: Cambridge College Press)
Luban, David, Shue, Henry, 2012, ‘Psychological Torture: A Critique of Erasures in U.S. Legislation’, Georgetown Legislation Journal, Vol. 100, No. 3, pp. 823-864
Machan, Tibor, 1990, ‘Exploring Excessive Violence (Torture)’, Journal of Social Philosophy, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 92-97
Mayerfeld, Jamie, 2008, ‘In Protection of the Absolute Prohibition of Torture,’ Public Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 109-28
McMahan, Jeff, 2006, ‘Torture, Morality, and Legislation,’ Case Western Reserve Journal of Worldwide Legislation, Vol. 37, Nos. 2 -3, pp. 241-48
McMahan, Jeff, 2008, ‘Torture in Precept and in Observe,’ Public Affairs Quarterly, Vol 22, No. 2, pp. 91-108
McMahan, Jeff, 2018, ‘Torture and Technique in Ethical Philosophy,’ in Anderson, Scott, Nussbaum, Martha, Confronting Torture: Essays on the Ethics, Legality, Historical past and Psychology of Torture In the present day (Chicago, IL: Chicago College Press)
Meisels, Tamar, 2010, The Bother with Terror (Cambridge: Cambridge College Press)
Miller, Wilbur, 2012, The Social Historical past of Crime and Punishment in America: An Encyclopaedia (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE)
Moore, Michael, 1989, ‘Torture and the Steadiness of Evils’, Israel Legislation Overview, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 280-344
Neuhauser, Christian, Stoecker, Ralf, 2014, ‘Human Dignity and Common The Aristocracy’, in Duwell, Marcus, Braarvig, Jens, Brownsword, Roger, Mieth, Dietmar, The Cambridge Handbook of Human Dignity: Interdisciplinary Views (Cambridge: Cambridge College Press)
Parry, John, 2004, ‘Escalation and Necessity: Defining Torture at House and Overseas’, in Levinson, Sanford, Torture: A Assortment (Oxford: Oxford College Press)
Posner, Richard, 2002, ‘The Greatest Offense’, The New Republic. Accessible at: https://newrepublic.com/article/66437/the-best-offense [Accessed January 29th 2020]
Randall, Glenn, Lutz, Ellen, 1991, Serving Survivors of Torture (Waldorf, MD: AAAS Books)
Rejali, Darius, 2009, Torture and Democracy (Princeton, NJ, Princeton College Press)
Roth, Kenneth, 2005, ‘Overview Essay: Getting Away With Torture’, International Governance, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 389-406
Scheppele, Kim, 2005, ‘Hypothetical Torture within the ‘Conflict on Terrorism’’, Journal of Nationwide Safety Legislation and Coverage, Vol. 1, pp. 285–340
Shue, Henry, 2006, Torture in Dreamland: Disposing of the Ticking Bomb’, Case Western Reserve Journal of Worldwide Legislation, Vol. 37, No. 2-3, pp. 231-239
Shue, Henry, 1978, ‘Torture’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 124-143
Spee, Friedrich, 1631, Cautio Criminalis (Sumptibus I. Gronaei)
Steinhoff, Uwe, 2006, ‘The Case for Soiled Harry and towards Alan Dershowitz’, Journal of Utilized Philosophy, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 337-353
Sung, Chanterelle, 2003, ‘Torturing the Ticking-Bomb Terrorist: An Evaluation of Judicially Sanctioned Torture within the Context of Terrorism’, Boston Faculty Third World Legislation Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 193-212
Sussman, David, 2005, ‘What’s Incorrect with Torture?’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 1- 33
Sussman, David, 2006, ‘Defining Torture Case’, Western Reserve Journal of Worldwide Legislation, Vol. 37, Nos. 2 -3, pp. 225-230
Thaler, Mathias, 2018, Naming Violence: A Essential Idea of Genocide, Torture, and Terrorism (New York Metropolis, NY: Columbia College Press)
Twining, William, Paskins, Barrie, 1978, ‘Torture and Philosophy’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol. 52, pp. 143-194
Twining, William, Twining, P., 1973, ‘Bentham on Torture’, Northern Eire Authorized Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 3, p. 305-356
Waldron, Jeremy, 2005, ‘Torture and Optimistic Legislation: Jurisprudence for the Whitehouse,’ Columbia Legislation Overview, Vol. 105, No. 6, pp. 1681-1750
Waldron, Jeremy, 2012, Torture, Terror and Commerce-Offs: Philosophy for the Whitehouse (Oxford: Oxford College Press)
Walzer, Michael, 1973, ‘Political Motion: The Downside of Soiled Palms,’ Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.160-80
Wolfendale, Jessica, 2006, ‘Coaching Torturers: A Critique of the “Ticking Bomb” Argument’, Social Idea and Observe, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 269-287
Written by: Leo Barnes
Written at: Durham College
Written for: Christopher Finlay
Date written: April 2020