Ticking Time Bomb: Utilitarian Ethics and Torture

Utilitarianism and the Morality of Torture

Torture has been one of the most controversial topics around the world. According to human rights principles, torture is considered illegal across national territories, even in desperate situations. Therefore, this essay focuses on arguments supporting the moral permissibility of torturing a suspected bomber, based on utilitarian theory, to save a significant number of civilians.

Defining Utilitarian Ethics

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that an action is right if it tends to increase the amount of good (happiness or pleasure) for the greatest number of people affected, while decreasing sadness or pain. This theory focuses strictly on the consequences of an action rather than the motivations behind it. As articulated by John Stuart Mill, actions should be determined based on the amount of utility created.

Torture: A Definition and Utilitarian Permissibility

The United Nations defines torture as: “any act which inflicts severe pain or suffering on a person with the purpose of obtaining information.”

Following this definition and the utilitarian position, torture becomes morally permissible under specific, extreme circumstances. The individual should be tortured only if they possess relevant knowledge that could prevent a terrorist act. While torture is generally considered morally wrong, the moral flexibility inherent in this theory allows for an exception. In this specific scenario, torturing one person is ethically acceptable because it aims to maximize the common good.

The Ticking Bomb Case: Torture as a Last Resort

Utilitarians argue that torture is only appropriate or justifiable as a last resort—meaning the prospective benefits must significantly outweigh the costs. In a classic “ticking time bomb” scenario, torture is morally tolerable because the act of torturing one individual will save multiple lives. Although the torture causes extreme pain to the victim, the resulting outcome is an aggregate increase in happiness and utility from a societal standpoint, due to the innocent lives saved.

Conclusion: Maximizing the Common Good

Viewing this scenario as a mathematical equation—where the suffering of one life is weighed against the salvation of many—the benefits clearly outweigh the cost of just one. Therefore, under utilitarian principles, the act is morally permissible because it maximizes the common good.