Ethical Dilemma

The first ethical dilemma presented in the film Zero Dark Thirty is whether or not torture can be justified or be used to do good. Although this film shows the American side of the war on terror, there are points that the film presents that backup the pro's and con's of this debate. For example, torture can be justified to do good when the ends justify the means. As is presented in the film, this example includes extracting useful information from detainees that they would have otherwise not given up if they were not tortured into doing so. I believe that this point is the strongest point in the debate. On the contrary, the film shows some of the detainees being tortured to the point where you can conclude that the prisoner might be providing information just to stop the torture. Since torture is not only physical pain, but mind games, the psychological pressure put on the detainees yields results.

For me, I support the use of torture in this scenario. To believe that one person cannot kill or cause harm to another person means that both people are equal, and therefore the person doing the killing/harming must be punished because all human life is valued the same. However, in this scenario, the terrorist prisoners' lives should be valued less and therefore torturing to extract information should be seen as the proper ends to justifying the means.