Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
ethical implications of terrorism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: ethical implications of terrorism
Michael Levin's article on "The Case for Torture." is an article which mainly discusess the use of torture as necessary and important in order to safeguard the lives of the many innocents and society and, is justifiable. In one of his examples, he verbally states that the mass murder of millions of an innocent crowd by a terrorist justifies the use an act of torture to stop such a brutal and barbaric act. This is a question of ethics on the action of wreak havoc. We need to look at the scenario of a war. People will never say that it is immoral or bad to let our soldiers kill or inflict pain on the enemies in a war because we know that it is the only way to make secure and safeguard our nation's freedom and the lives of our country men. The motives are very clear as mentioned in the article. Thus it‘s justifiable to let our soldiers kill those who want to harm the lives of our people. When a terrorist clearly have a willingness to harm the lives of millions of people, why is it not justified, to inflict pain on the terrorist, with the aim of wanting to protect and secure the lives of many more innocent people? Surely it is a right decision! Now one may look at this argument: The Constitution of America protects the interest of one's rights but, to torture a person is a breach of law that protection of interest is not there. Therefore, Torture is illegitimate. Torturing is however, is an illegal act only when the aim behind it is deemed reasonably immoral. One should then not inflict pain mainly just to push the other party to make a confession of the truth to a matter if one does not wish to do. But, what if the truth will then lead to the place of say, a bomb, which could then be diffused in time an... ... middle of paper ... ...ded at the time. Should we all know the truth and would actually accommodate to orders under torture. If people reject the author's argument and we have carry out exact pain to pressure out the truth from them, we may just get that since the likelihood must have been higher because of the accuracy of the agencies' information. As a closing statement, I feel that eventually, the case for torture is an exercise that is acceptable so long as it satisfies the completion of the concept of "moral or character standards…” as a whole. There will not be a close answer on “whether torture was right or wrong”. It will be a question that will continue to be implemented onto humanity should they decide to attain one definite approval. Till then, we should continue to equilibrium the innocent lives against the means wanted to save them, with regards to attention of morals
Rather, when torture is acceptable, and on which term should be it performed? The argument lest authorization torture his an advisor Sharde presumption that torture is currently happening and will be happening in the future hence the the. Plan of torture and. Dershowitz believes in a formal, visible, accountable, and controlled system of inflicting that would ideally leave torture as a last resort. The system would begin by granting the suspect immunity. Then suspect the be would compelled to testify; if the suspect were to refuse to exchange information, the next step would be acknowledging the possibility of torture while continuing to give the option of immunity. In a case of a suspect refusing to exchange information, even with immunity, a judicial warrant must be granted to proceed with purposely elicited
The notion that fear will make a human leak information is not a novel idea. Torture has widely been used throughout the world by many groups of people. After World War II, The Geneva Convention prohibited any nation from partaking in torture. The emergence of terrorist activity on American soil brought up the question whether torture should be advocated or prohibited from a moral standpoint. The US changed the definition of torture in order to forcibly attain potentially important information from captives. Even though the new clause suggested that many of the methods the US used were now legal, other countries still had an issue in terms of honoring the Geneva Convention and basic human rights. Advocates for torture promise that countless innocent lives can be saved from the information obtained from a single torture victim. Opponents to the advocates suggest that torture often results in misleading information. Morally, torture is not justified as it degrades humans and often leaves victims scarred for life and possibly dead.
Torture is one of the most extreme methods of eliciting information; unfortunately, it has been used for centuries and is still prevalent worldwide.
Torture (Latin torquere, “to twist”), in law, infliction of severe bodily pain either as punishment, or to compel a person to confess to a crime, or to give evidence in a judicial proceeding. Among primitive peoples, torture has been used as a means of ordeal and to punish captured enemies. Examination by torture, often called the “question,” has been used in many countries as a judicial method. It involves using instruments to extort evidence from unwilling witnesses.
Torture may be an inhumane way to get the information needed to keep the citizens of the United States safe from the attacks that are threatened against them, but there is rarely a course of action that will ensure the safety of a nation’s citizens that doesn’t compromise the safety of another group of people. Nevertheless, we must conserve as much humanity as possible by looking at the situation we are in and ensure that we are approaching the torture in an ethical manner. Although torture is valid on moral grounds, there are many who oppose it, such as Jamie Mayerfeld as he states in his 2009 article “In Defense of the Absolute Prohibition of Torture”.
People may try to justify its use by claiming it can be used to gain critical information or in similar situations; this is a feeble attempt to use possible results in order to justify the terrible use of torture as a means of getting there. To deontology, torture is morally wrong, and more than that, it is always morally wrong. There is no situation in which torture should be used, period. The way torture grossly outstrips people’s human autonomy and right to be treated as ends in themselves makes it a moral evil in the eyes of deontology. In addition, torture’s maxim of allowing for one person to harm another for gain is also not universalizable, making it an even more morally corrupt action. Deontology examines the critical question of whether or not there are times humanity should allow atrocities of torture in order to achieve an end. Deontology answers with a stern and resounding disapproval of torture. This ethical system sees every person as valuable, equal, and autonomous, who should never be abused or manipulated for any reason. With this virtuous sensibility in mind, it is easy to see why deontology so firmly rejects torture as ever being
In addition, there is no way to enforce the treaty in states, even if they have ratified it. Which makes it hard to make any progress on reducing the use of torture, fortunately, there may be some headway in the future in the form of the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture. The Optional protocol would allow monitored visits to states to ensure that no cases of torture were occurring. The purpose of this paper is to research the Convention Against Torture and how why states decide to accept the convention. We will also look at the enforceability of the Convention Against Torture and what the future for it may possibly
Who wouldn’t have agreed? Yes, torture is cruel but it is less cruel than the substitute in many positions. Killing Hitler wouldn’t have revived his millions of victims nor would it have ended war. But torture in this predicament is planned to bring no one back but to keep faultless people from being sent off. Of course mass murdering is far more barbaric than torture. The most influential argument against using torture as a penalty or to get an acknowledgment is that such practices ignore the rights of the particulars. Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture” discusses both sides of being with and being against torture. This essay gets readers thinking a lot about the scenarios Levin mentioned that torture is justified. Though using pathos, he doesn’t achieve the argument as well as he should because of the absence of good judgment and reasoning. In addition to emotional appeal, the author tries to make you think twice about your take on
Until there is a credible way to determine whether or not torture is in fact effective, I pass judgment that the practice should be discontinued. The question as to if the torture policy is a human rights violation or if it holds crucial necessity, is not answered in the essay. Applebaum explores the reality that torture possesses negative implications on the inflictor. After presented with the compelling stance and evidence, Applebaum raises the interesting question as to why so much of society believes that torture is successful. I agree that the torture policy is wrong, a point emphasized by Applebaum, contrary to the popular attitude surrounding the topic.
The ongoing debate between torture and enhanced interrogation techniques is, has been and always will be a hot controversial topic. Whether between different political views, cultures, world leaders or the citizens and society in general, the issue will always be of great importance. Some believe the two are the same, while others feel they differ. Either way, the methods and effectiveness are the major points for concern.
Torture is something that can cause severe emotional and physical damage along with being a method to compel someone to reveal “valuable” information (“Definition of torture,” n.d.). When a person is being tortured they could also be compel to participate in an activity they don’t want to do (“Definition of torture,” n.d.). Since ancient times torture has been a method used to obtain valuable intelligence. Presently, the use of torture to acquire beneficial facts is a highly controversial topic. Torture is a highly controversial topic because no one knows how effective it is at retrieving information plus it violates human rights and dignity (“Why is Torture Wrong?” 2014).
One main concern with torture is its effectiveness. Many believe that it is effective. However, research has shown that it is not. Research has also shown that torture has been used for money gathering not for the vital information gathering that is said to be used for. In the article, Torture does not make America Safer, It was shown that 86 percent of Guantanamo’s 517 detainees were arrested by The United States Northern alliance and that for every “terrorist” captured the Pakistani would collect $5000. It has also showed that interrogators have a hard time figuring out if what is said by the person being tortured is truth or not. In the article Torture Does Not Make America Safer Alfred W. McCoy, who is a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and author argues that using torture does not protect America. McCoy says that interrogators have a hard time figuring out whether the truth is being told or not.
In his essay “The Case for Torture,” printed in The Norton Reader 13th Edition, Michael Levin argues that torture is justified and necessary under extreme circumstance. He believes that if a person accepts torture to be justified under extreme cases, then the person automatically accepts torture. Levin presents weak argument and he mostly relies on hypothetical scenarios. There is not concrete evidence that torture solves problems and stop crime but rather the contrary. Under international law, torture is illegal and all the United Nation members have to abide by those rules. The use of torture does not keep people safe, but rather the opposite. Torture has a profound effect on democracy. As the use of torture becomes normal in society, the right of the citizen will suffer greatly.
In conclusion, the convention against torture, has brought many people together, and has informed many people of the horrible tortures which go on everywhere from the US to Syria. It has tried to set fine lines which prohibit torture under all circumstances. However, since there is no governing body over countries, it remains difficult to enforce the human right standards sought after by the Convention against torture. The convention has therefore done a good job at identifying the torturers. This has in turn lessened the amount of those persecuted. It will remain a gradual process to eliminate torture from all countries, but nevertheless a necessity, in the quest for universal human rights. Torture will continue until all countries decide for themselves, and not from a third party convention that freedom from torture is a human right everyone deserves.
Torture is the process of inflicting pain upon other people in order to force them to say something against their own will. The word “torture” comes from the Latin word “torquere,” which means to twist. Torture can not only be psychologically but mentally painful. Before the Enlightenment, it was perfectly legal to torture individuals but nowadays, it is illegal to torture anyone under any circumstances. In this essay, I will demonstrate why torture should never acceptable, not matter the condition.