Of the three main purposes for which torture is typically employed—punishment, intimidation and information gathering—only the last is ever seriously defended as morally justified. And usually only in very special circumstances. Usually, this is where an individual refuses to reveal information that can prevent a great tragedy. The classic example involves a terrorist that knows the location of a time bomb that will kill thousands if it goes off but refuses to reveal the location. Is torture ever justified to gain the information and save lives?

What Do We Mean By ‘Torture’?

Torture is the deliberate infliction of severe pain or other suffering on a person to extract information, punish or intimidate. We often see two other criteria added to the definition: that the person suffering torture is powerless; and that the torturers are acting in an official capacity or with the approval of a public official.

Individuals can inflict what might be called torture on others without any kind of official approval. In addition, their victims can be animals as well as human beings. However, what we are concerned with here is ‘officially sanctioned’ torture in a particular kind of scenario.

‘Ticking time bomb’ scenarios are exclusively concerned with extracting information. Therefore, in this article, we are not concerned with torture designed to punish or intimidate. Indeed, the morality of either of these activities ought not be up for discussion. Torture designed to punish or intimidate is widely and rightly considered to be morally abhorrent.

We will also not attempt to locate precisely what is torture or is not. For example, there have been controversies in the past over a possible difference between torture and so-called ‘advanced interrogation techniques.’ In the 1970s, in the UK, the ‘five techniques’ of hooding, prolonged standing, noise subjection, sleep deprivation, as well as food and drink deprivation were not considered torture. There were debates in Europe over the exact status of these techniques. At one time it was argued that the five techniques were ‘inhuman and degrading’ but did not amount to torture. In 2021, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled this kind of enhanced interrogation to be torture.

From here on, we will be considering the use of what is already known to be torture to extract information in a ticking time bomb scenario. What are these scenarios?

Ticking Time Bomb Scenarios

Imagine knowing that somewhere in your city a time bomb has been planted by a terrorist organization. The bomb is set to go off in twelve hours. When it does, many innocent lives will be lost. The problem is that you have no idea where in the city the bomb has been hidden. There is not enough time for the bomb to be found before the twelve hours are up. Evacuating the city is not an option. You have one hope: a member of the terrorist cell has been captured and is in custody. He alone knows the location of the bomb. However, he refuses to reveal its location. Would it ever be morally acceptable to torture this man to force him to tell you where the bomb can be found?

The ‘father’ of ticking time bomb scenarios is the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). Today Bentham is most well-known for his axiom: “It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.” This is the fundamental principle of utilitarianism, of which Bentham is considered the founder. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that seeks to show that morally right actions lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. It is a consequentialist approach to morality, in which the outcome or consequence is held to be the most relevant factor in making a moral decision.

In an unpublished text, Bentham imagines a group of innocent people currently subjected to the most terrible torture. We know what they are suffering, but not where they are. Suppose we have one of the criminals responsible in custody. Bentham asks why it would not be permissible to subject him to the same kind of torture to discover the location of the innocent people and save them.

The Real-Life Case of Magnus Gäfgen

A real-life ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario occurred in Germany in 2002. As we have seen with Bentham’s example, such scenarios do not have to involve actual bombs. All that is required is that some innocent person is in terrible jeopardy and another person in custody has the information to save them. In his case, a law student by the name of Magnus Gäfgen kidnapped an 11-year-old boy, Jacob von Metzler, intending to receive a ransom from the boy’s parents. Gäfgen was arrested but refused to reveal where he had hidden the boy. In actuality, Metzler was already dead. Gäfgen had already killed him. Believing the boy to still be alive, the police were desperate to locate him, fearing he would certainly perish if not found.

In an extraordinary move, Deputy Police Chief Wolfgan Daschner authorized interrogating officers to inform Gäfgen that he would be tortured if he did not give up the location of his victim. In fact, no torture was ever ordered nor would it have been used. Gäfgen knew he was caught; his guilt was under no doubt. Fearing he would be tortured, he finally told the truth.

The case caused considerable controversy and intrigue. Daschner was given a suspended sentence and a ten thousand Euro fine for his actions. Many people in Germany, 60% of the respondents in one poll, said that they thought the police chief had done the right thing. However, others claimed that the threat of torture is itself torture. That is, the belief that one will be tortured causes severe psychological suffering to the person threatened with torture.

As well as shedding light on the topic, expanding our understanding of torture and ticking time bomb scenarios, this tragic case also highlights another issue that requires our attention. The efficacy of torture.

A Pragmatic Approach

Suppose Magnus Gäfgen had been tortured. What would have been revealed? The location of Jacob von Metzler’s body. The torturers intended to save the boy, but this aim could never be achieved.

Those who object to torture in ticking time bomb scenarios are quick to point out that there has never been a single example of this happening and working in real-life.

Consider the example, given above, in which you have a terrorist in custody and need him to reveal the location of a hidden time-bomb. Say that the utilitarian approach to ethics convinces you. That is, you believe that the morally right thing to do in this situation is that which is best for the greatest number of people. If you can force the terrorist to give up the location of the bomb, you will save the lives of hundreds. You have several practical problems to overcome.

It can be safely assumed that the terrorist organization knows that one of its operatives might be caught and will talk if tortured. It is unlikely that this person knows enough relevant information even if they could be made to talk. But even supposing that they did, how do you know the information they give is accurate? Torture by its very nature causes immense psychological stress. Those subjected to it will say anything if they think it will make it stop. The whole weight of ticking time bomb scenarios is that you have limited time to act and get the necessary information. Those who object to these arguments on purely practical terms point out that torture simply will not work. When you have extracted all the information you need, it will always be too late to do anything about it.

Arguments for Torture in These Scenarios

American lawyer and law professor Alan Dershowitz has argued that most people, when faced with an actual ticking time bomb scenario, would approve of torture. In his book, Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge (2002), Dershowitz claims that if a bomb were planted somewhere in New York’s Time Square, torture should be used and that it would be used. For him, no sane person would refuse to sanction torture in this case.

Dershowitz disputes that there have been no examples of successful real-life uses of torture in ticking time bomb cases, citing the 1995 Bojinka Plot. This was a terrorist attack intended to assassinate the Pope, blow up eleven airliners, and crash a plane into CIA headquarters. The plot was uncovered by chance, when a fire broke out in an apartment block in the Philippines. Police found bomb-making equipment and other evidence. A man, later discovered to be Abdul Hakim Murad, was arrested. After sixty-seven days of torture, he revealed details of the plots.

Dershowitz is not alone in believing the Murad case to be a text-book example of a ticking time bomb scenario as well as a strong argument for the permissibility of torture in these cases. However, things are not quite as clear-cut.

In a detailed account of the case by Stephanie Athey in 2007, she raises several doubts over Murad’s case being a true ticking time bomb scenario. For example, enough evidence was found to foil any plots before torture was used. The Pope even completed his visit whilst Murad was undergoing torture. For a true ticking time bomb scenario, there must be imminent danger that cannot be avoided. Finally, in these scenarios we must know about the threat before the torture. However, here the plots were discovered during the torture.

What Do These Scenarios Tell Us About Torture?

During his time as Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney was a vocal supporter of ‘enhanced interrogation’. Still unrepentant, Cheney is adamant that techniques criticized by many as torture were necessary for the protection of the US. One of his claims is that a plot to crash airliners into buildings on the West Coast of America was thwarted due to these techniques. However, a Senate report revealed information key to preventing the attack came from an individual not held in custody then.

It is unclear whether Cheney endorses true ticking time bomb scenarios. Firstly, he seems to deny that ‘enhanced interrogation’ actually amounts to torture, for example, when he claims that US operatives were always very careful to stop short of actual torture. While some would strongly dispute that operatives stopped short of torture, we only have a true ticking time bomb scenario when torture is considered knowingly and consciously.

In addition, when asked about those who have died under enhanced interrogation that turned out to be entirely innocent, Cheney defended the program despite such errors. His approach is utilitarian but not based on a ticking time bomb scenario.

When we look for those who support the use of torture in real-life circumstances, we never find actual ticking time bomb scenarios. Indeed, there has never been an actual recorded incidence of one occurring. Instead, we get far more vague and messy circumstances that sometimes get close but never meet the requirements of the scenario. If ticking time bomb scenarios are the only justification for torture, then it seems a real possibility that there will never be a real-life situation in which torture is morally acceptable. In addition, we should be very wary when those advocating for torture use ticking time bomb scenarios to support their position.