Compose an 800-word written analysis in which you identify the moral issue(s) and the parties involved. Take a balanced moral position offering a recommendation or a policy resolution. Please draw on any three approaches to ethics from utility, duty, rights, virtue, or care.
Choose from:
Anticipating the possibility that their soldiers may one day be captured by the enemy, some modern armies include in their basic training exposure to torture techniques. That is, they subject their own troops to mild forms of torture in order that they may learn how to resist it. Is this practice justifiable morally? If you believe it is justifiable only under certain conditions, specify the conditions.
Some countries, notably Great Britain, have initiated maintenance programs for drug addicts. Merely by signing up, an addict becomes entitled to free drugs in doses sufficient to stabilize and maintain his or her habit. Such programs reduce the incidence of drug-related crimes and facilitate research into the phenomenon of addiction. Some critics, however, claim that these programs are immoral because they approve and support physically and emotionally harmful behavior. Is this criticism ethically valid?
Full Answer Section
Balanced Moral Position and Ethical Approaches
This practice sits on a profound ethical precipice. While the intent – preparing soldiers to survive horrific experiences – is understandable and arguably noble, the means employed involve the deliberate infliction of significant physical and psychological harm. A balanced moral position must carefully weigh these conflicting considerations. I conclude that this practice is generally not morally justifiable, although alternative, non-harmful methods of resistance training should be vigorously pursued and funded. Under extreme and narrowly defined circumstances, involving fully informed consent and rigorous oversight, a limited form of simulation (not actual torture) might be defensible, but the line between simulation and harmful practice is perilously thin and easily crossed.
Let us examine this position through three ethical lenses:
1. Utilitarian Approach (Consequences)
A utilitarian evaluates the morality of an action based on its outcomes – specifically, whether it produces the greatest good for the greatest number (or in this case, the net benefit for the soldiers and the military).
- Arguments for Justification (Potential Benefits):
- Enhanced Resilience: Soldiers trained this way might resist torture more effectively, potentially leading to better survival rates, more accurate (less coerced) information being withheld from the enemy, and greater psychological well-being post-capture.
- Preparedness: It could reduce the shock and helplessness experienced during actual torture, potentially aiding post-traumatic recovery.
- Operational Effectiveness: A soldier who resists better might be more effective upon return or escape.
- Arguments Against Justification (Potential Harms/Costs):
- Harm to Soldiers: The training itself inflicts significant physical pain, psychological trauma (including PTSD symptoms), and undermines trust in the military leadership. This constitutes a serious harm to the very individuals the military aims to protect.
- Counterproductive Effects: The trauma from the training could potentially make soldiers more susceptible to breaking under real torture, or lead them to divulge information earlier as a coping mechanism for past trauma. The psychological damage might outweigh any supposed resilience gained.
- Erosion of Morale and Trust: Knowing that the military subjects its own troops to torture, even "mild," could severely damage morale, trust in leadership, and the sense of duty and loyalty within the ranks.
- Net Harm Calculation: The cumulative harm caused by training soldiers this way – the suffering endured, the potential long-term psychological damage, the erosion of trust – likely outweighs the uncertain and potentially counterproductive benefits of enhanced resistance. The principle of do no harm (non-maleficence) is directly violated. While the intent is to prevent greater harm (enemy torture), the utilitarian calculus suggests the harm caused by the training itself is significant and perhaps greater than the net benefit derived.
2. Deontological Approach (Duty and Rights)
A deontologist focuses on duties, rules, and rights, rather than just consequences. Certain actions are inherently wrong, regardless of the outcomes they produce.
- Arguments for Justification (Duty-based):
- Duty to Protect: The state and military have a duty to prepare soldiers for the realities of war, including capture. This could be framed as a duty to expose them to necessary hardship.
- Arguments Against Justification (Duty/Rights-based):
- Duty to Not Inflict Unjust Harm: The military and the state have a fundamental duty to protect the well-being of their soldiers. Deliberately inflicting torture, even mild, violates this duty. It treats soldiers merely as means to an end (better resistance) rather than as ends in themselves, violating Kantian principles of respect for persons.
- Right to Bodily Integrity and Freedom from Torture: Soldiers have a basic right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhumane treatment. While this right might be forfeited by the enemy during war, it should remain inviolable by one's own government and military. Training using torture techniques, even on one's own, normalizes the act and violates this fundamental right.
- Violation of Trust: It breaches the implicit trust soldiers place in their leadership – a trust that they will be treated ethically and not subjected to unnecessary degradation or harm by their own side.
- Setting a Precedent: Normalizing the use of torture, even in training, blurs the lines and could potentially create a slippery slope where such methods are seen as acceptable in other contexts.
3. Virtue Ethics Approach (Character and Moral Virtues)
Virtue ethics asks, "What kind of person (or organization) should we be?" and evaluates actions based on whether they cultivate or undermine moral virtues.
- Arguments for Justification (Cultivating Virtues):
- Cultivating Resilience and Fortitude: The argument could be made that the training toughens soldiers, cultivating virtues like courage, resilience, and mental fortitude necessary for warfare.
- Arguments Against Justification (Undermining Virtues):
- Cultivating Cruelty and Desensitization: Subjecting soldiers to torture, even mild, risks desensitizing them to extreme suffering. It could cultivate a virtue of "resilience" that borders on callousness or acceptance of cruelty. It may erode empathy and humanity.
- Undermining Trust and Loyalty: As mentioned in the utilitarian section, this practice severely undermines the virtue of trust within the military organization. Loyalty is eroded when soldiers feel betrayed by their own leadership.
- Damaging Character:* The psychological trauma inflicted can damage a soldier's character, potentially leading to lasting mental health issues, increased risk of substance abuse, or difficulty reintegrating into civilian life – all of which reflect poorly on the character cultivated by the military.
- Betrayal of Ethical Character:* A military that engages in torture training, even on its own, betrays the ethical character expected of a just and humane armed force. It models cruelty rather than protecting its members from it.
Recommendation and Policy Resolution
Based on this analysis, the practice of using actual torture techniques, even mild, on soldiers during training is morally unjustifiable. The inherent wrongness, the significant harm caused, the violation of rights and duties, and the potential negative character impacts outweigh the uncertain and potentially illusory benefits of enhanced resistance.
Recommendation:
The military should immediately cease any programs that involve the infliction of torture, even mild forms, on soldiers. Resources currently allocated to such programs should be redirected towards:
- Developing and Implementing Non-Harmful Resistance Training: This could include psychological preparation, scenario-based training (without physical harm), cognitive restructuring techniques, and education on the realities of interrogation and effective resistance strategies (e.g., providing predetermined, non-classified information)
Sample Answer
The Moral Issue and Parties Involved
The core moral issue here is whether intentionally inflicting mild forms of torture on soldiers during training is morally justifiable, even with the laudable goal of preparing them for potential capture and torture by an enemy. This practice pits the potential benefits of enhanced resilience and survival against the inherent wrongness of intentionally causing severe suffering and violating the well-being of one's own soldiers.
The primary parties involved are:
- The State/Government: The entity responsible for the military and its training protocols. It has an interest in ensuring its soldiers can withstand interrogation and protecting its personnel.
- The Military Command: Those designing and overseeing the training programs. They bear direct responsibility for the methods employed.
- The Trainers: The individuals tasked with carrying out these specific training components.
- The Soldiers: The direct recipients of the training and the potential victims of enemy torture. They are the primary subjects whose moral status and rights are at the heart of the issue.