Ethics Topic: Torture

I. The Problem
The ethics of torture is highly debated in today’s culture, yet rarely critically assessed. It seems common knowledge to permit torture, especially for a group of people who would do the same to any American in their captivity or who have the ability to kill millions of people. However, Christians must examine the way they have logically come to this conclusion by heavily weighing the premises with scripture.

II. The Relevant Sources of Authority
In Christian ethics, the believer is required to view all ethical issues in light of the first and second greatest commandments Jesus presents in Matthew 22:37-40: to love God and love one’s neighbor. Many consider this a supporting text for the permissibility of torture since neighbor-love requires doing whatever is necessary to save them from harm. However, it is also important to realize the one being tortured is just as much a neighbor as the ones in the way of harm. The requirement to love the suspect is just as binding as it is to love the masses. A second foundation laying verse is Genesis 1:27, which clearly states God made man in his image. Thus, human beings are required to treat others as fellow image-bearers created by God.
The story of Jonah also provides some insight to this topic. In today’s culture, many have either conscious or unconscious hatred for the Muslim world. Jonah so passionately hated the Ninevites that he did not want God’s salvation to come to them. In analyzing a proper perspective on torture in an age of terrorism, it is important to keep Jonah’s actions versus God’s actions in mind.
There are several verses in scripture regarding torture. In Matthew 8:29, hell is portrayed as a place or torture. Revelation 9:5 says torture will be one of the plagues on the ungodly in the last days. As seen in Acts 16, godly believers were often the victims of torture but never the participants. In the Old Testament, God did instruct the Israelites to obliterate certain people-groups who would have been a hindrance to God’s redemptive plan of sending Jesus through the Jewish line. However, He never instructed or permitted the practice of torture in those battles.
An analysis of the history of thought regarding this issue is always helpful in assessing it or modern day. In 866, Pope Nicholas I wrote, “Neither divine nor human law allows [the practice of torture] in any way, since a confession should be spontaneous, not compelled, and should not be elicited with violence but rather preferred voluntarily. Indeed, what fruit shall you have in those practices, of which you are now ashamed.” Despite the early Church’s position, torture was seen in the practice of Christians in the Medieval ages when pagan rituals and practices were mixed with biblical principles. During his inquisition, Innocent IV sanctioned, and even prescribed, the use of torture. He writes, “In addition, the official or Rector should obtain from all heretics he was captured a confession by torture without injuring the body or causing the danger of death, for they are indeed thieves and murderers of souls and apostates from the sacraments of God and of the Christian faith.” The practice is seen off and on throughout Church history culminated today with, as David Gushee offers, “Our current crisis represents our succumbing to the temptation to waive moral rules that we have every reason to know are applicable to us.” Many have offered a compromise by suggesting the door banning torture should be cracked rather than opened all the way. As Robert Kennedy says, “defensive interrogatory torture” may be permissible under carefully qualified situations, however, he says, “it is quite likely that most instances in which interrogatory torture is employ would not conform to these principles and so would be immoral.”

III. Position Statement
The use of torture for any reason is morally wrong for several reasons. First, those who advocate torture typically adopt the utilitarian axiom that it is better to sacrifice the one for the many. Though scripture does not prohibit the implementation of any utilitarian thought, it does not seem to be biblically permissible to primarily entertain utilitarian ideals when assessing a moral dilemma. Rather, an ethical decision must be based not on pragmatic consequences but on the absolute standard of morality God established.
Secondly, scripture, unlike the Qu’ran, makes no provision for torture of any kind though it certainly does support capital punishment for crimes that have been committed and deserve death. Surveying scripture verses related to torture, the following observations can be made: 1) Torture is never condoned, or even prescribed in scripture. 2) Torture is never seen in practice by the godly in scripture though they were often the victims. 3) Torture is clearly reserved as part of the judgment of the ungodly in hell. Thus, a biblical perspective on this issue seems to prohibit torture of any kind for any reason.
From an ideological standpoint, it is important that the means used to protect human life must not encourage contempt of human life at the same time. The main proponents of torture waive the banner of “protection of human life” to champion their cause. However, it is impossible to see how an act that fundamentally degrades and makes little of human life could actually accomplish their goal. While lives may be saved in the short-term, the long-term ideology established will prove to be even more detrimental if human life becomes a situational value.
Finally, the attempt for justice cannot be undermined in unjust ways. While there is a place for “just war” and capital punishment, the main goal of supporting human life as creatures formulated in the Image of God must be kept in perspective. Of course, prisons should not be Day Spas and interrogators shouldn’t sound like Oprah. After all, protection of innocent life is a major factor in “neighbor love.” However, a proper perspective is in order before such activities are adopted.