Maximizing Net Flourishing and a Reasonable Argument Against Torture

Mirko Bagaric writes “in the end, we must always act in a manner that maximizes net flourishing and inform our moral choices by reason, not reflexive emotion: that is the closest it comes to an absolute moral principle.” I will object to this piece by arguing that a total abolition of torture would in fact maximize net flourishing, and also that arguing against torture in every form and in every circumstance is a perfectly reasonable, not emotional, moral choice.

            Rejecting torture in all cases maximizes net flourishing by minimizing the amount of human suffering. If the United States and other world leaders set the standard that torture is inhuman and is antithetical to our conception of individual freedom, we will set a basic standard that all governments will eventually progress towards. This progress will likely take many years, but the potential to eliminate the form of suffering caused by torture is worth the incredibly rare “ticking time bomb” scenario that is described by Bagaric. This scenario does not occur enough to justify the continued use of torture.

Bagaric argues that the anti-torture position is not rational. This is false. Even in the incredibly rare “ticking time bomb” scenarios, torture does not work. Sources ranging from reports declassified by the U.S. government to neurological studies show that torture does not lead to the truth, and is more likely to provide interrogators with false information. There is no argument more rational than the professionally agreed upon opinion that torture does not provide the truth. In cases where “answers” are given, they are most likely false, and waste the time of investigators who could be using resources in some other productive fashion.