The thought of knowing that a terrorist attack is coming but not knowing how to stop it is a very scary thought. Some people when they become scared during such situations would be willing to do almost anything to find out any information about the attack while others would try to stay within their moral convictions and the law. There are many different theories in the world, and they would all have a different answer to the dilemma that was presented. Egoism is a theory that is about people caring only about themselves. They say that their self-interest and happiness should be the main goal of anything that they do. The Egoists would most likely say that it would be alright to torture the man because it is in their best interest. …show more content…
Natural Law talks about how moral principles are discovered through reasoning and reflecting on our human nature. It would say that torturing the terrorist would be wrong because as humans we know that it is wrong. If people were to take the time to reflect on human nature and the basic human goods, they would see that it is wrong to torture the terrorist since it goes against basic human nature. Divine Command Morality believes that our moral principles are grounded in the commands of God. They would say that torturing the terrorist would be wrong because it goes against the commands of God. God tells people in his word that they are to love one another and to love their enemies. If they were to torture the terrorist, they would not be showing love to the terrorist. I think that I would take the theory of the Divine Command Morality theory in this problem. As stated earlier, God tells us to love one another. How can I love someone if I am torturing them? God also tells us in his word in Matthew 7, that we should treat others in a way that we would want to be treated. If I do not want to be tortured, how can I justify torturing the
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
The reason I picked this book is because I have always been curious about terrorism. Truthfully, I really didn’t expect the book to take the stance it did, which focused mainly on the religious implications of what influences people to commits acts of terror. I liked the fact that the book takes new angles in approaching the search for truth, by focusing on case studies and performing interviews with the people who have committed terrorist acts. This is like getting the insiders view of the inner workings and frame of mind people have before, during, and after they have unswervingly performed the acts of violence.
Capital punishment and torture are often looked down on in today’s societies because they are viewed as cruel and unconstitutional, but perhaps they would help in more ways then we would like to admit. They can be beneficial in many ways such as encouragement to be truthful, encouragement to live by the laws, and as a source of punishment. Capital punishment and torture are thought to be too painful, and the person doing the punishment is also committing a crime.
For example Christians follow the Bible, Jew read the Quran and American citizens follow obey the United States Constitutions and laws. The definition of natural law is principles originated from nature that bind human societies together in the absence of additional positive laws (“Dictionary Natural Law,” n.d.). According to Brecher, Devenney & Winter (2010), the United States Constitution prevents the use of torturing criminals and suspected terrorist.
Terror management theory (TMT) asserts that human beings have natural tendency for self-preservation if there is threat to one’s well–being (Greenberg, Solomon, & Pyszczynski, 1997). It notes that we are the cultural animals that pose self-awareness on the concept of past and future, as well as the understanding that one day we will die. We concern about our life and death but aware that it is unexpected by everything. The worse matter is that we become aware of our vulnerability and helplessness when facing death-related thoughts and ultimate demise (Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1992). The inevitable death awareness or mortality salience provides a ground for experiencing the existential terror, which is the overwhelming concern of people’s mortality and existence. In order to avoid the continued existence of threats, people need faith in a relatively affirmative and plausive cultural worldview and meaning of life (Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 1995). Cultural worldview is a perceptual construction in the society which explaining the origins of life and the existence of afterlife. We have to invest a set of cultural worldviews by ourselves that are able to provide meaning, stability and order to our lives and to offer the promise of death transcendence (Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 2004). On the other hand, we hold a belief that one is living up to the standards of value prescribed by that worldview and social norm shared by a group of people. This belief is derived by self-esteem of individual. We maintain the perception and confident that we are fulfilling the cultural prescriptions for value in the society and are thus eligible for some form of personal immortality (Landau & Greenberg, 2006). We Together with the assump...
America prides itself in treated all individuals humanely and fairly, and even one person under force suffering is against what America stands for. America should never justify torture based on our beliefs we were built on. Bruce Anderson says, “A man can retain his human dignity in front of a firing squad or on the scaffold: not in a torture chamber. Torturers set out to break their victim: to take human being and reduce him to a whimpering wreck” (Anderson 1). America does not believe in breaking someone down, but rather build them up. When an American messes up, in jail we continue to build them up. We help them get a college degree, try to work some of their unwanted qualities out, and give them the opportunities to better themselves. America is supposed to be the leader and teach the world that torture is not the answer. That is why nearly a quarter of American people believe torture should never be used of justified (ProQuest 2). Americans still hold the core values that this beautiful country was built
To begin, one has to consider what torture is. Torture is defined as “the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something” (Torture, 2014). While this definition is accurate in its description of physical torture, does mental torture fall under the same definition? To answer the question mental torture need not bring about pain but only subject a person to mental anguish, as a means of lowering a person’s resistance to questioning. First, what are some of the types of physical torture. Physical torture can take any number of different manifestations. Be it from beating a person with fists or an object, cutting off parts of the body, electrocution, branding, or dislocation of joints. Basically physical torture is anything that brings about pain to garner the desired result i.e. answers to questions. Next, what are some of the mental tortures. Like physical torture mental torture manifests in a number of different ways and does not have to be suffered by the person being tortured. Some of the mental tortures used include sensory deprivation, sexual degradation, and the threat or use of torture on a loved one (Luban & Shue, 2011). Once again the result of this type of torture is to bring about a desired result. To conclude, torture whether physical, mental, or a combination of each...
“Terrorism involves the use of violence by an organization other than a national government to cause intimidation or fear among a target audience;” at least, this is how Pape (2003) defines terrorism in his article “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” (343). The goal of this article by Pape is to discuss suicide terrorism and how it “follows a strategic logic, one specifically designed to coerce modern liberal democracies to make significant territorial concessions” (343). Similar to Pape, Bloom (2004) and Horowitz (2010) also delve into the exponential increase of suicide terrorism and why it occurs. Although Pape, Bloom, and Horowitz concur that suicide terrorism is increasing, they disagree why it is so prominent. While the arguments presented from each of these researchers is powerful and certainly plausible, suicide terrorism is in fact not irrational, but strategic and is most often caused by state occupation and, when organized, aimed specifically at democracies.
Consider the following situation: You are an army officer who has just captured an enemy soldier who knows where a secret time bomb has been planted. Unless defused, the bomb will explode, killing thousands of people. Would it be morally permissible to torture them to get him to reveal the bomb’s location? Discuss this problem in light of both Utilitarian and Kantian moral theories and present arguments from both moral perspectives for why torture is morally wrong.
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were the first to hint at the natural law theory. They knew that law was different place to place but that “nature” was the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384-322) is considered the father of the “natural law” (“Natural Law”). Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) made it to what the Roman Catholic Church today uses. The theories views of abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia and other controversial issues are used in the church (Vaughn 109). Many people, religious or not, believe that people can figure out moral rules and live a moral
Psychological egoism, a descriptive claim about human nature, states that humans by nature are motivated only by self-interest. To act in one's self-interest is to act mainly for one's own good and loving what is one's own (i.e. ego, body, family, house, belongings in general). It means to give one's own interests higher priority then others'. "It (psychological egoism) claims that we cannot do other than act from self-interest motivation, so that altruism-the theory that we can and should sometimes act in favor of others' interests-is simply invalid because it's impossible" (Pojman 85). According to psychological egoists, any act no matter how altruistic it might seem, is actually motivated by some selfish desire of the agent (i.e., desire for reward, avoidance of guilt, personal happiness).
The Divine Command Theory is the idea that what makes an action wrong or right is the command of God. Therefore, an action is morally obligatory if God commands it is right. An action is morally wrong if God commands it is wrong. Lastly, an action is only optional if God doesn’t command it or forbid it. Morality is commanded by God independently of what we think is right or wrong. For instance, if God commands that murder is wrong, than it is wrong only because God commands it is wrong. If he commands that donating to charity is right, it is only right because of his will.
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.
The Natural Law stated that humans have a moral knowledge/reason that makes us able to decide what’s right. This has caused various debates on whether people did the right because it was the right thing to do or whether they did it because that’s
The natural law was given to man so that he might know virtue. While the natural law is vague, and hard to understand it always points in the right direction. Human law derives its precepts from the natural law. However, human law often misinterprets what the highest good is and creates laws that disagree with the natural law. One case where the natural law conflicts with human law is abortion, which is directly opposed to the natural law of God.