The use of torture has always been a hot topic of moral and ethical discussion. Typically, the discussion is not about whether or not torture is good, but rather if there is ever a morally acceptable situation in which torture should be allowed to occur. Does a criminal’s deeds strip him of basic human rights and make it morally okay for him to be physically and mentally abused? Do certain situations such as war make torture acceptable? It is generally agreed upon that torture is a terrible violation of a person and their rights; the common thread among moral questions such as these is if there are any times when torture could be considered morally acceptable. In order to analyze this moral dilemma, an ethical system is commonly used as a …show more content…
As Shunzo Majima describes it: “According to Kantian deontology, torture cannot be morally justified if an individual’s humanity and dignity are denied through torture and the torture victim is used merely as a means for achieving the purpose of torture” (Majima, 2012, p. 138). Because of the way torture gravely violates a person’s autonomy and treats them only as a means of getting information or for some other end, it is considered inherently wrong in the eyes of deontology. People who are tortured are no longer seen as human or respected as one; instead, they are seen only as tools that can be manipulated and used in order to achieve a certain result. This, to deontology, is morally …show more content…
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
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
Alan Dershowitz challenges the legitimization of non-lethal torture in his essay, “Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist be tortured?” He claims that torture should indeed be legitimized for specific scenarios that require such action. The ticking bomb terrorist gives the example of a terrorist withholding time-sensitive information that could result in the death of innocent citizens, if not shared. Not only does Dershowitz challenge the idea of torture, but he also gives a probable solution that favors the legitimization the torture. He mentions three values that would have to be complied with by all three branches of government if it were to be legitimated, which Dershowitz does endorse. The arguments of the two perspectives discussed in the
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.
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.
Hence, Beli and Oscar both experience physical torture in the cane fields. Elaine Scarry's "The Structure of Torture" describes how the act of torture effects an individual. Both Beli and Oscar experience varying effects of torture, which both reinforces and subtracts from the claims made Scarry's excerpt. To put it briefly, Beli and Oscar's deaths are in one way or another caused by torture; and in a broader sense; caused by love. As Marcel Proust once said: "love is a reciprocal
In “The Case For Torture” an article written by Michael Levin, he attempts to justify the use of torture as a means of saving lives. Throughout the article, Levin gives the reader many hypothetical examples in which he believes torture is the only method of resolution. Though I agree with Levin, to some degree, his essay relies heavily on the fears of people and exploits them to convince people into thinking pain is the only way. In certain aspects, I could agree entirely with Levin, but when one reads deeper into the article, many fallacies become apparent. These fallacies detract from the articles academic standing and arguably renders the entire case futile. Levin’s strategy of playing with the fears of people is genius, but, with more creditable details of the issue the article would have sustained the scrutiny of more educated individuals. The addition of more concrete information, would have given people something to cling to, inherently improving the articles creditability.
The issue of torture is nothing new. It was done in the past and it’s done now in the 21st century. Without saying one side is right and the other side is wrong, let us discuss the part that we agree on and find common ground. We as Americans want to protect Americans from harms. So how do we prevent that from happening without torturing? It is impossible to get answer without some sort of questioning and intimidation techniques, since we know captured prisoners during war are not easily going to give up information. We know the enemy we face doesn’t follow the Geneva Convention or any law that pertains to war, so does that mean we shouldn’t also follow the Geneva Convention also, which prohibits torture? Of course not, because we want to be example for the world. Republicans argue that we have to do whatever is necessary to keep Americans safe, and Democrats argue it goes against our values and makes us look bad. We as Americans, as leader of the free world we
Torture is the act of inflicting severe pain or suffering, mental or physical, on an individual to obtain information, to intimidate or for punishment. Torture is expressed in many ways, for example, rape, hard labour, electric shock, severe beatings, etc, and for this reason it is considered as cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. Therefore, it is a violation of human rights and is strictly prohibited by international law. Michael Davis and many other individuals have stated that torture is worse than murder. He claims, “Both torture and premature death are very great evils but, if one is a greater evil than the other, it is certainly torture”. With that being said, there are three major reasons to discuss, in which, torture is not morally acceptable. However, in many cases it is considered very beneficial, but the disadvantages outweighs the benefits. Firstly, bullying is a form of torture but to a lesser extent, in which it results in an individual suffering from low self-esteem, suicidal thoughts, self-harm, etc. In addition, torture is mainly used as a means to obtain information, however, it is an ineffective interrogation tool in which, the data given could be falsified. Lastly, torture is sometimes utilized to shatter the autonomy of individual, that is, the right to their freedom and independence, forcing the victim to succumb to the torturer’s way of thinking.
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.
Though torture and enhanced interrogation are similar in that they both force information from captured individuals, they are basically different due to motives as well as extreme measures used. Enhanced interrogation is used by the United States for certain interrogation methods including “walling, facial hold, facial slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and water boarding” (Quigley 3). This method of interrogation is protected against international criminal prosecution. However, torture is known as the practice of inflicting “cruel, inhumane, degrading infliction of severe pain” (Beehner 1) and is “often used to punish, to obtain information or a confession, to take revenge on a person or persons or create terror and fear” (Quiroga 7). Like enhanced interrogation, torture can be used to retrieve information. However, the motive of using torture is not always to save lives. Although enhanced interrogation us...
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.
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.
As we analyze this scenario through the eyes of Kantian Deontology, it is imperative that we recognize that, for our purposes, the lives of the civilians in question are irrelevant. This is because, as stated earlier, the consequences of one’s actions are meaningless; it is only the intent and will that truly matter in deciding an actions morality. We are only concerned with discerning the moral nature of torture itself. By removing the possibility of a terrible outcome, Kant leads us to a clear verdict on torture. In response to the first question that Kantian’s must ask themselves, it appears that torture fails. Torture is certainly not a maxim that many would want to will into the natural law. The second formulation of the categorical imperative, the basis of the second question that Kantian’s need to consider, is where torturing for information is declared absolutely impermissible. By torturing someone for information, specifically the location of several bombs, we are disregarding their rational autonomy by using them merely as a means only (Reitan). There is one scenario where the torture of the criminal could be considered morally acceptable. This is supported by Kant’s stance on capital punishment. Some may find this surprising, but Immanuel Kant was a
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.