Imagine that a known criminal is holding your family hostage, they are tied up with guns pointing at them.  One of the known criminal’s accomplices is sitting in the same room as you and is gloating rather than concealing their guilt. The accomplice will not tell you where your family is and how to help them, so the only way to save your family is to torture the accomplice in front of you. By torturing that person you can obtain the relevant information to save your family. The situation above is a personalised version of the ‘ticking-bomb’ case.

In most cases the ‘ticking-bomb’ case is not enough to persuade people of the justified use of torture. The original ‘ticking-bomb’ case is that there is a bomb in a nearby city and the culprit is in front of you, do you torture him and locate the bomb and saving many lives? Most people would be unwilling to torture the culprit to get the information on where the bomb is and without this information potentially a lot of people will die.

However, these same people could be willing to drop bombs on Iraq and Afghanistan. This is because the victims that will die or are severely mutilated are ‘name less’.  Hitherto most torture victims are not ‘name less’, this is because torture is up close and personal.

If a torture pill was created that subjected the user to both mental and physical punishment that could not be resisted,  but to the torturer, the victim appears to be asleep, would this type of torture become more socially acceptable to use?  By using a torture pill no visible signs of pain are seen therefore creating a level of naivety similar to that of a bomber pilot. Whereas both would know that their actions would result in suffering as the victims pain is unknown and they cannot see the damaged caused they can live guilt free lives.

During war a bomber pilot returning to base after releasing his bombs upon a civilian target killing hundreds of people including women and children is viewed as a hero. Whereas a torturer who has never killed a person but has tortured people to gain vital information to save soldiers and civilian lives is viewed as immoral. This is because they are viewed with different levels of culpability. The torturer who took actions that went against the Geneva Convention will be viewed as a villain as although it was necessary, people do not agree with the idea of torture and do not condone its use. Torture is viewed as barbaric, immoral and has no place in modern society.  But the pilot who risked his life to kill others is viewed as a hero as people view his actions as necessary in order to protect his country and to help bring a war to an end.  Also, his actions are seen as protective.  So how can a bomber pilot who murdered innocent women and children be a hero and a man who has never killed and whose actions saved lives be a villain?

‘In modern war, what is most shocking is a poor guide to what is most harmful’ (Jonathan Glover ). This quote is an accurate depiction of how modern war is viewed, bombs which cause mass collateral damage are ok and torture is wrong. The bomb is more harmful but accepted where the idea of using torture is more shocking and rejected. But both results in human suffering, if one is accepted surly the other should be as well, as both actions are equally bad.

The use of torture is a necessary evil to protect lives as it is the most effective method to obtain the relevant information in scenarios similar to the ‘ticking-bomb’ case. It is also equally immoral to bombing.