In a world of terrorism and unknown threats, how far would you go to create a world of perfect peace and happiness? Would you be able to torture one child to save mankind? Ivan Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoevsky's realist and atheist from "The Brothers Karamazov," has challenged international leaders and societies with this paradox of torture, and I challenge you. A yes implies the justification of torture; the torture of the innocent. By permitting the destruction of the innocent, are we preventing the destruction of mankind? What are the implications of torturing the innocent? Are there exceptions to permit torture? Those who practice it tell us that this is the price that needs to be paid by the suffering few in order to guarantee happiness to the rest of society, the enormous majority given security and well-being by those horrors inflicted in some dark cellar. Nevertheless, I would say no to torture; whether we are facing the end of the world or the possibility of saving lives, there is an inherent problem with saying yes to Karamazov. Are you willing to take the responsibility of destroying peace?
Karamazov's question initially challenged me because it is a conundrum that I had to consciously analyze before finding my answer. On the one hand, we are faced with the potential happiness for mankind and the rest of eternity, but on the other, it is at the expense of an innocent victim. I would become what I fear most: a torturer. Similar to the torturer, I would be eliminating the difference between the guilty and the innocent.
It is frightening to think that the countless citizens in the world who, if confronted by Karamazov's challenge would consciously be able to accept that their desire for peace and prosperity would come in the expense of an innocent child's horrifying nightmare. But I offer you the only reality: it is too high of a price to consider the conscious mind of accepting such a sacrifice.
What if the one person that has to be tortured is guilty? What if peace and prosperity comes by torturing a man who has committed mass murder? Would the answer to Karamazov's question still be a no? When faced with such a challenge, I suggest you think of Beslan. Beslan was the most horrific terrorist act by a group of "freedom fighters" who massacred children. They tried justifying their act stating that if these children were sacrificed, their people, who were undermined and possibly tortured as well, would attain freedom and prosperity. But is this freedom? We are creating a world where there is no separation of innocent bystanders anymore; even children are obvious targets creating a limitless climate of fear.
What if we decide we can in fact become a torturer just once; it makes sense since we are beginning to think like most torturers. They, just like us, do not think of themselves as evil but as guardians of the common good who are dedicated enough to get their hands dirty and endure perhaps some sleepless nights in order to deliver eventual peace. Sometimes, is it okay to live with Dirty Hands? We can justify our actions by feeling guilty later; sometimes we have to think of the tasks at hand and worry about the repercussions later.
Maybe we can accept certain types of torture; but what are its limits? How is torture measured? Is it a verbal insult, a slap in the face, or physical abuse only? Does the circumstance define the level of torture and willingness to act? What about terrorism? Sometimes we try to define the evils in the world, and though torturing is evil, there is greater evil. The United States has used questionable methods of interrogating detainees to find answers in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001. They differentiated torture and interrogation for a more state-protective definition. In other words, we accepted the American soldiers humiliating Iraqi detainees because they used lighter means of torturing. But is there a distinction? It is internationally agreed that torture should not be permitted, but is it an option based on necessity? Charles Fried, the Harvard law professor, says that if we're to save mankind then it would be justified to torture - but does that mean torturing a terrorist's innocent child? It is a troublesome point because it allows man to do anything if it deemed necessary to prevent trouble from brewing.
Torture should never be justified, no matter what the reason. While people argue that there is always one exception, I do not think there are any legitimate excuses. Karamazov creates a scenario where many would argue the outcome outweighs the scenario; one would suffer moral guilt if they are the reason there isn't peace in the world, but I think the price makes one's hands too dirty. Torturing an innocent child for the greater good is inconceivable; no matter what the reasoning. We must set precedence by creating standards and regulations that abolish torture altogether; if we accept even one scenario of torturing the innocent, we are one step closer to creating the climate of fear. The outcome of torturing an innocent child will never bring peace and prosperity, only misery and guilt. It is imperative to maintain the rejection of torture; it is not a last resort, but rather, an unthinkable option.
Ajaita Shah is a senior majoring in international relations.
