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. This means 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 use of torture is the only and best way to insure your family’s safety. Surely you would want to torture the accomplice and save the lives of your family? Or would you prefer to do nothing and let them die, a slow and painful death? Could you live with yourself knowing you did not do all you could to save them? The situation above is a personalized 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, locate the bomb and save many lives? Or do you allow thousands of innocent people to die? Would you be able to live with yourself knowing that you could have prevented the bombings? But despite the immense guilt of not acting, most people would be unwilling to torture the culprit to get the information. Without this information, the bomb would inevitably  go off and potentially a lot of people would die. Is this more immoral than torturing one psychopath who is willing to kill innocent people without the slightest hint of remorse?

These are the very same people who would be willing to drop bombs on Iraq and Afghanistan. Their innocent victims will die or at the very least be severely mutilated. They will remain forever ‘name less’. In contrast  torture victims hold on to their names. This is unjust. While torture is up close and personal it is a necessary evil to protect mankind and the lives of the innocent.

During a war a bomber pilot returning to base after releasing his bombs upon a civilian target killing hundreds of people including women and children is perceived 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 though it was a necessary woe. Torture is viewed as immoral as people do not agree with the idea of torture and do not condone its use. Although this is the only way to save lives with the absolute minimal loss of life. Torture is the only way to truly protect a country from the threat of terrorism, nuclear war and cyber attacks.Torture must be used to save innocent lives. Instead we allow millions to die at the hand of a lunatic and terrorist organisation. Torture is viewed as barbaric, immoral and unjust. People believe the practice of torture has no place in modern society.  But the pilot who risked his life to murder others is viewed as a hero. This is because people view his actions as an unavoidable act of violence, in order to protect his country and to help bring a war to an end.  Also, his actions are seen as protective, however his actions are clearly more immoral.  So, how can a murderous bomber pilot who slaughtered innocent women and children be a hero, and a man who has never killed and whose actions saved lives be a villain?

The philosopher, Jonathan Glover once said ‘In modern war, what is most shocking is a poor guide to what is most harmful’. This  is an accurate depiction of how modern war is viewed; bombs which cause mass collateral damage are permissible and torture is an infringement of justice. The bomb is more harmful but accepted where the idea of using torture is more shocking and rejected. But both results in unprecedented human suffering. If one is accepted surely the other should be as well?  Both actions are equally dreadful acts.

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. Torture is the safest, best and only way to protect the interests of a country and save innocent lives.