Moral Integrity and Interrogational Torture in the War on Terror

Abstract

In this thesis I will argue that interrogational torture, understood as the infliction of severe pain and suffering in order to acquire information from someone, is morally impermissible. I will begin by considering two arguments in support of interrogational torture: the consequentialist argument and the rights-based argument. I will argue that both of these arguments are flawed and fail to establish the conclusion that interrogational torture is morally permissible. I will then provide a philosophical analysis of the concept of moral integrity, and show how this idea of moral integrity applies to state institutions and government officials who represent those state institutions. I will argue that any government official who engages in an act of torture degrades their own moral integrity as a representative of state institutions, along with the moral integrity of state institutions.