Thought experiment 11: The Harmless Torturer
Illustration by Marie Montocchio / Ikon Images
'Do not walk on the grass,' requests the sign on an exquisite landscaped garden. If everyone ignored this sign, the garden would be ruined. But suppose, under the cover of darkness, I strolled across it. Nobody would ever know, and I would make no perceptible difference to the lawn. So what harm would I cause?
The brilliant and eccentric Oxford ethicist Derek Parfit had as fertile an imagination for thought experiments as any philosopher of the past century. 'Derek specialised in discovering deep puzzles in philosophy – he produced problems that remain very difficult to resolve,' says the philosopher Jeff McMahan. One of those problems is the 'Harmless Torturer', from his 1984 masterpiece Reasons and Persons. It addresses the moral conundrum of actions with imperceptible effects.
Imagine a torturer and a victim. The torturer turns a dial from one to 1,000 on the pain-o-meter, thus causing the victim immediate and agonising pain. Obviously wrong. Now imagine a variation.
A thousand torturers have a thousand victims. At the start of each day, each of the victims is already feeling mild pain. Each of the thousand torturers turns a switch a thousand times, at ten-second intervals, on some instrument. Each turn of a torturer's switch affects that torturer's particular victim's pain in a way that is imperceptible. But, after each torturer has, in just under three hours, turned his switch a thousand times, he has inflicted severe pain on his victim.
Let's call these 1,000 sadists 'Gradual Torturers'. Obviously, they have acted reprehensibly. But why? Suppose they're all arrested. At trial, the prosecuting barrister could put the case that each time the Gradual Torturers turned the dial they harmed their victims, because suffering can be made imperceptibly worse. The judge may be sceptical and think: how can pain be worse if the person in pain isn't aware that it's worse?
The barrister might try another tack. Even though each turn of the dial wasn't bad, 1,000 turns of the dial was very bad indeed, because after 1,000 turns each victim certainly felt the change. That's why the behaviour of the Gradual Torturers is appalling.
He inserts 'Harmless Torturers' who differ from the Gradual Torturers, as they don't each have one victim:
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Each of the thousand torturers presses a button, thereby turning the switch once on each of the thousand instruments. The victims suffer the same severe pain. But none of the torturers makes any victim's pain perceptibly worse.
Don't we want to say that the Harmless Torturers have behaved as appallingly as the Gradual Torturers? The result has been identical: 1,000 victims ended up with the same unbearable degree of pain. But the prosecuting barrister can no longer argue that each torturer has made the life of one victim perceptibly worse. No Harmless Torturer has made any perceptible difference to any one victim. The issue of their actions must be explained in another way. As Parfit puts it: 'If we cannot appeal to the effects of what each torturer does, we must appeal to what the torturers together do.'
An action is wrong, in other words, if it's part of a set of actions that together are wrong. 'Parfit's solution is not uncontentious,' says McMahan. Is the torturer who twists the dial from zero to 1,000 – thus causing excruciating pain to one victim – really not doing anything worse than the torturer who turns it from zero to one, with an undetectable impact, on 1,000 victims? Part of the problem is whether harms and benefits should be considered 'aggregative'. Do 1,000 mild headaches equate to one life-threatening illness? Do harms just add up? And can harms be balanced, on one side of a moral equation, with benefits on the other?
Many philosophers have addressed the aggregative problem. In another example (not Parfit's), an engineer, whose job it is to transmit the World Cup to billions of football supporters, falls under the transmitter, experiencing regular, electric shocks. We could save him from the pain by cutting wires, causing a break in the TV broadcast for half an hour. Here, one man's suffering seems to outweigh the viewing pleasure of billions.
Fun intellectual puzzles, but so what? Well, take an individual's contribution to climate change. It might be convenient for me to leave a light on, and the effect on climate change of my decision will be negligible. But is leaving lights on wrong? Or consider a vegetarian's approach to meat. Whether or not an individual chooses to eat meat won't lead to the maltreatment or killing of one less animal. So, although the Parfit thought experiments are wacky, says McMahan, 'they are ubiquitous in various forms in real life'.
[See also: Thought experiment 10: The Trolley Problem]
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
22-05-2025
- New Statesman
Child poverty is Britain's ongoing, forgotten crisis
Photo by Oli Scarff / Getty Images Mary remembers when she became homeless. She was in year four at school and her family 'hopped' around different friends' houses for a year. During that time, she stopped going to class for months, which led to the school stepping in. Mary is one of the millions of young people in the UK who grew up in poverty, a number that has now grown to 4.5 million. Living in a low-income family meant Mary could never afford school trips or school meals – even her school uniform required months of saving up. 'I remember it being more isolating,' she said. 'I guess I was old enough to know what was going on, and so I just wanted to get out of that situation.' Public policy can, and often is, a dry retelling of statistics and figures that struggle to convey the magnitude and impact of an issue such as child poverty, let alone what that means to an individual. Early attempts to quantify poverty by social reformers such as Seebohm Rowntree set an amount of money within a family below which they would be in poverty. A figure for child poverty was not attempted until 1965, when Brian Abel-Smith and Peter Townsend estimated that 2.25 million children met the definition in their book The Poor and the Poorest. These figures were based on a family having an income that was below 140 per cent of the 'National Assistance' payments made by the state. Nowadays, poverty is calculated using a threshold of 60 per cent of the median income and, in the UK since 1996, subtracting housing costs, given the particularly high cost of housing here. There is a good degree of consensus across those working on child poverty that this is a decent threshold. It is not, however, without its weaknesses. 'I do think that is a useful measure, but it's just one specific measure. It's based on a line which is fairly arbitrarily drawn, and you know, it will sometimes miss important subtleties,' said Tom Wernham, a senior research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies. For example, he continued, a policy such as removing the benefit cap would seem to have little effect on the number of children in poverty. However, that is because its impact would mainly be on those children living in deep poverty (which is defined as 40 per cent of median income). It would not by itself lift them over the poverty line, but it would get them much closer than they were. 'One solution to this is, when we're thinking about evaluating specific policies, trying to think how they will affect incomes across the distribution,' Wernham said. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Another challenge is place. Housing costs in a city such as London are very high and have a big impact on the number of children in poverty. However, public services in London, such as transport, schools and parks, are more available than in parts of the UK with lower housing costs, or rural areas. To an extent, housing costs act as a proxy to the quality of local services, but that brings its own challenges. '[It] comes back to this question of, what do you want? What do you want the measure to do?' Wernham said. The success of New Labour in bringing down the level of child poverty was, in part, due to setting legally binding targets based on the 60 per cent median income measure. '[It] really focused both minds and government departments to ensure that they were pulling together across Whitehall,' said Rachel Walters, coalition manager at End Child Poverty. However, those targets were dropped after Labour lost the 2010 general election. Walters and the 130 organisations that comprise the End Child Poverty coalition argue that the promised Child Poverty Strategy from the government must include legally binding targets again. 'We think that a government should be able to have less than 10 per cent of children living in poverty,' said Walters, adding that this is 'a long way off' at present. 'The need to reduce child poverty came directly from the PM and the Chancellor. So, it was really considered a top priority for the whole of government, and that's what we want to see this time around,' said Walters. Wernham points out that there are other statistics published that are connected with poverty, and child poverty, that are useful in of themselves, but are not as good for evaluating the impact of policies. There are indicators for deprivation and food insecurity that are released alongside the official poverty statistics. There is also a new measure of what the Department for Work and Pensions is calling 'below average resources', similar to the poverty measure but taking account of other factors, such as childcare and disability costs. It is possible that, over time, extra costs will be added to the measure of poverty, akin to the 1996 addition of housing. This should bring greater attention to those components of the costs that drag families down into poverty. The solution, however, is not just to cut costs but also to raise incomes. Mary's family were eventually placed in temporary accommodation, where they stayed for another two years. 'It was a very, very slight relief, because at least we had our own space,' she said. But the space was limited, and the living situation had an impact on her parents. 'All their emotions just spilled out, and it would be arguments and arguments after each other,' she said. While they were in temporary accommodation, Mary's dad suffered a health crisis and nearly died. These are experiences that are impossible to quantify, but the broad measures of child poverty are good enough to make public policy interventions. The question is whether policymakers are good enough to act on them. This article first appeared in our Spotlight on Child Poverty supplement, of 23 May 2025, guest edited by Gordon Brown. Related
New Statesman
21-05-2025
- New Statesman
Britain is failing children in care
Illustration by Gary Waters / Ikon Images There is no denying that, for so many looked-after children, growing up in care can be brutal and traumatic. I should know. I was looked after for most of my childhood, shunted between a range of foster homes in south-east London, as well as doing a stint in a residential care home with pre-teen boys of a similar age. In my case, it was necessary. But what concerns me is children being placed into care when it's avoidable – when there's a better alternative. The number of looked-after children in England is high – more than 80,000. And although statistics from the Department for Education show that only a small proportion of children in care are there due to being in 'low income' homes, that doesn't disprove that poverty is a significant factor for children entering the system. The UK's most senior family court judge, Andrew McFarlane, cites poverty as a key reason. It's also the case that poverty is often the trigger behind some of the other reasons children are placed into care – issues such as neglect and abuse. It demands concern that poverty can play such a vicious role in upending the life of a vulnerable child. Shouldn't the levers of the state be robust enough to prevent a child from being ripped apart from loved family members? Just as concerning are the distances some of them are being sent to live, away from their homes and that which they hold dear. According to research from Become, a charity for care leavers, one in five children in care in England is placed more than 20 miles from their family, friends, school and wider community. When the care system works, it can save the life of a child and steer them on to a positive path. I had the fortune of being supported by some incredible foster carers, care-home workers and social workers, all of whom played a critical role in my development and self-esteem. The fact remains, however, that many children in care are being let down. At its worst, time spent in care can compound trauma, deepen a child's sense of abandonment and diminish their life chances. Placing a child into the care system should only ever be a last resort. A greater emphasis should be placed on preventative measures, keeping families together wherever it's safe and possible to do so. A few years ago, I presented a BBC3 documentary, Split Up in Care, about the frequency of siblings being separated in the care system; it was rooted in my experience of sibling estrangement. I explored how some local authorities were pioneering preventative strategies. During the pandemic, Derby City Council introduced a rapid-response team to support vulnerable families and prevent more children from entering the system. In 15 months, they helped 60 families to stay together and prevented 50 sibling groups from being split up. While such measures form part of the solution, we must also recognise the challenge that leaving care presents for thousands of young people. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Despite a string of school suspensions and one exclusion, I studied history at the University of Cambridge. It was something my local authority celebrated: a care-experienced student had been accepted into Oxbridge. To them, it was a case of social care having 'worked well'. Yet, despite me being on the receiving end of platitudes and adulation, the reality of leaving care was tumultuous. My foster family let me go when I was 18. As well as studying for my A-levels, I had to prepare for independent living and moving into a council flat. Alongside sorting out student bursaries and loans, I also had to bid for council properties and budget for home furnishings. I should have been able to focus solely on my education, but that 'luxury' was never afforded to me. Perhaps most challenging was that I wouldn't receive funding for both student accommodation and a London council flat. I could either stay in London and get a council flat, or go to Cambridge and lose my bidding priority for the flat. This was problematic because my Cambridge college didn't offer year-round accommodation. Only after I contacted my local MP did I receive the support to both attend my university of choice and have a home. Why should any teenager have to be so resilient? So overwhelming were the pressures of leaving care that I nearly declined my Cambridge offer. How many young people, on the cusp of leaving care, are giving up on their ambitions and potential because of the immediacy of survival? University and other forms of higher education are not being pursued by many leaving care. I'd suggest this is not due to a lack of interest or ability, but the suffocating demands care leavers face when it comes to independence. The chance to dream is a privilege that many leaving care aren't given. This stunted potential affects society deeply, including care-experienced people forming large proportions of the homeless, young offending and adult offending populations. In 2022, the Welsh government piloted a basic income scheme for those leaving care. While its success is yet to be determined, one must appreciate the effort made to ease the pressure on those confronting the brutality of adulthood and independence. So many in care have known poverty – we must offer them a route out of it. The case for better support for those leaving care is beyond clear. Hopefully, our authorities are prudent enough to ensure that the children's care system ends up doing what it says on the tin: caring. Ashley John-Baptiste is the author of 'Looked After: A Childhood in Care' (Hodder) [See also: The brain behind Labour's EU deal] Related
New Statesman
14-05-2025
- New Statesman
Thought experiment 11: The Harmless Torturer
Illustration by Marie Montocchio / Ikon Images 'Do not walk on the grass,' requests the sign on an exquisite landscaped garden. If everyone ignored this sign, the garden would be ruined. But suppose, under the cover of darkness, I strolled across it. Nobody would ever know, and I would make no perceptible difference to the lawn. So what harm would I cause? The brilliant and eccentric Oxford ethicist Derek Parfit had as fertile an imagination for thought experiments as any philosopher of the past century. 'Derek specialised in discovering deep puzzles in philosophy – he produced problems that remain very difficult to resolve,' says the philosopher Jeff McMahan. One of those problems is the 'Harmless Torturer', from his 1984 masterpiece Reasons and Persons. It addresses the moral conundrum of actions with imperceptible effects. Imagine a torturer and a victim. The torturer turns a dial from one to 1,000 on the pain-o-meter, thus causing the victim immediate and agonising pain. Obviously wrong. Now imagine a variation. A thousand torturers have a thousand victims. At the start of each day, each of the victims is already feeling mild pain. Each of the thousand torturers turns a switch a thousand times, at ten-second intervals, on some instrument. Each turn of a torturer's switch affects that torturer's particular victim's pain in a way that is imperceptible. But, after each torturer has, in just under three hours, turned his switch a thousand times, he has inflicted severe pain on his victim. Let's call these 1,000 sadists 'Gradual Torturers'. Obviously, they have acted reprehensibly. But why? Suppose they're all arrested. At trial, the prosecuting barrister could put the case that each time the Gradual Torturers turned the dial they harmed their victims, because suffering can be made imperceptibly worse. The judge may be sceptical and think: how can pain be worse if the person in pain isn't aware that it's worse? The barrister might try another tack. Even though each turn of the dial wasn't bad, 1,000 turns of the dial was very bad indeed, because after 1,000 turns each victim certainly felt the change. That's why the behaviour of the Gradual Torturers is appalling. He inserts 'Harmless Torturers' who differ from the Gradual Torturers, as they don't each have one victim: Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Each of the thousand torturers presses a button, thereby turning the switch once on each of the thousand instruments. The victims suffer the same severe pain. But none of the torturers makes any victim's pain perceptibly worse. Don't we want to say that the Harmless Torturers have behaved as appallingly as the Gradual Torturers? The result has been identical: 1,000 victims ended up with the same unbearable degree of pain. But the prosecuting barrister can no longer argue that each torturer has made the life of one victim perceptibly worse. No Harmless Torturer has made any perceptible difference to any one victim. The issue of their actions must be explained in another way. As Parfit puts it: 'If we cannot appeal to the effects of what each torturer does, we must appeal to what the torturers together do.' An action is wrong, in other words, if it's part of a set of actions that together are wrong. 'Parfit's solution is not uncontentious,' says McMahan. Is the torturer who twists the dial from zero to 1,000 – thus causing excruciating pain to one victim – really not doing anything worse than the torturer who turns it from zero to one, with an undetectable impact, on 1,000 victims? Part of the problem is whether harms and benefits should be considered 'aggregative'. Do 1,000 mild headaches equate to one life-threatening illness? Do harms just add up? And can harms be balanced, on one side of a moral equation, with benefits on the other? Many philosophers have addressed the aggregative problem. In another example (not Parfit's), an engineer, whose job it is to transmit the World Cup to billions of football supporters, falls under the transmitter, experiencing regular, electric shocks. We could save him from the pain by cutting wires, causing a break in the TV broadcast for half an hour. Here, one man's suffering seems to outweigh the viewing pleasure of billions. Fun intellectual puzzles, but so what? Well, take an individual's contribution to climate change. It might be convenient for me to leave a light on, and the effect on climate change of my decision will be negligible. But is leaving lights on wrong? Or consider a vegetarian's approach to meat. Whether or not an individual chooses to eat meat won't lead to the maltreatment or killing of one less animal. So, although the Parfit thought experiments are wacky, says McMahan, 'they are ubiquitous in various forms in real life'. [See also: Thought experiment 10: The Trolley Problem] Related
