Justifying torture becomes impossible. Any way designed to justify its use is when certain assumptions are generally made. The bomber scenario described used in essays is an excellent example. Do we or do we not torture the terrorist? In this instance, it seems that the life of one person can’t outweigh the lives of millions of people. Yet even in this extreme situation, consider what is assumed. First, one assumes that the bomb actually exists. Perhaps it does not—is there any irrefutable evidence to prove that it does? Without clear proof that lives are actually in danger, torture is an unjustifiable affront to the rights of the suspected terrorist.
Secondly, it is assumed that we have the right person in custody. What if the authorities arrested the wrong person? Perhaps he’s confessed, but can one be sure the confession was genuine? Maybe he’s insane—or maybe he wants to give his group credit for the bombing—even at risk