The utilitarian perspective on torture is also known as the welfare-based perspective. This perspective basically believes in the concept that ends justify means. Thus, whatever means are used does not matter as long as the end is fulfilled. They answer the famous “ticking bomb” question by saying that saving many lives at the cost of one is completely justified and hence, torture should be used. Besides, there are other arguments supporting the use of torture. One justification of torture is that at least it keeps the victim alive. The law prohibits torture unconditionally, yet allows killing under certain conditions. According to the utilitarian perspective, since killings are allowed in some situations, the use of torture can also be sanctioned …show more content…
Just-combat killing refers to killing done in accord with all relevant requirements for the conduct of warfare. Thus, when a more pernicious act can be legally authorized at certain times, torture, a less abusive punishment, can certainly be authorized at times as well. Torture is used in order to protect the security and sovereignty of states or people. But very often, there is a disconnection between its purported goal and the real outcome. Many states order the use of torture in order to extract information from captured terrorists or captured suspected terrorists. While torture is state-sanctioned in some cases, in some others it is done through extrajudicial means of punishment. Extrajudicial punishment is punishment that is meted out under the order of the state or some other official authority without the permission of a court or legal authority. The United States of America has several camps outside their territory in which suspected terrorists are subjected to inhumane forms of punishment, such as those in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These detainees who are locked up there are tortured and interrogated and then
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
Once torture is accepted, it has a high chance of going down a “slippery slope” as Dershowitz puts it. He introduces case utilitarian justification, which deems torture appropriate as long as the benefits outweigh the cost. He uses a hypothetical question posed by Ivan Karamazov that creates a scenario that exhibits the absence of limitations in case utilitarian justification. As one could imagine, during torture, an absence of limitations is not ideal. Karamazov questions whether a person would be willing to sacrifice an innocent child’s life to give eternal happiness and peace to all of man. This demonstrates the concern of a person doing anything to achieve a certain objective, as long as the cost falls below the benefit. However, Dershowitz claims that the worry of a slippery slope is simply an “argument of caution” being that all settlements with a single source of absolute control could fall into a slippery
The death and torture rates are extremely high where the prisoners are
In order to defend my standing in this argument I will reason that the use of capital punishment has many benefits that trump any possible objections. Special attention will be given to the topics of deterrence, the families of the victims, and the increased population that has been occurring within our prisons. Any possible objections will also be assessed including criticism regarding the monetary value of the use of the death penalty and opposition to this practice due to its characteristics, which some identify as hypocritical and inhumane. My goal in arguing for the moral justifiability of capital punishment is not to use this practice extensively but rather to reduce the use to a minimum and use it only when necessary.
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 2 Cruel and Unusual Punishment in the United States: Continuity and Change within the Last Two Centuries A significant aspect of the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution is that the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments is prohibited. However, interpretations of the definition of what a cruel and unusual punishment consists of have become extremely ambiguous. For example, many argue that the death penalty is unconstitutional because it is cruel to take another person’s life willingly; however, others argue that it is acceptable if it is done in a controlled and humane manner. Over the course of the United States history, punishments have ranged from public whippings and hangings, to the electric chair and life in prison. Physical punishments have decreased as society has progressed, yet they continue to be a major source of controversy.
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...
Torture to most people is a cruel and unusual regimen. It's also considered as evil. Intolerable, and unconstitutional. Most of us has experienced the horrific Hollywood films and real life events involving torture. Michael Levin, a well known professor of philosophy at Columbia University, advocated for the usage of torture as a preferred method of preventing evil and he explains why in his article “The Case for Torture.”
Capital punishment is a difficult subject for a lot of people because many question whether or not it is ethical to kill a convicted criminal. In order to critically analyze whether or not it is ethical, I will look at the issue using a utilitarianism approach because in order to get a good grasp of this topic we need to look at how the decision will impact us in the future. The utilitarianism approach will help us to examine this issue and see what some of the consequences are with this topic of capital punishment. For years, capital punishment has been used against criminals and continues to be used today, but lately this type of punishment has come into question because of the ethical question.
ABSTRACT: Both utilitarians and the deontologists are of the opinion that punishment is justifiable, but according to the utilitarian moral thinkers, punishment can be justified solely by its consequences, while the deontologists believe that punishment is justifiable purely on retributive ground. D. D. Raphael is found to reconcile both views. According to him, a punishment is justified when it is both useful and deserved. Maclagan, on the other hand, denies it to be justifiable in the sense that it is not right to punish an offender. I claim that punishment is not justifiable but not in the sense in which it is claimed by Maclagan. The aim of this paper is to prove the absurdity of the enquiry as to whether punishment can be justified. Difference results from differing interpretations of the term 'justification.' In its traditional meaning, justification can hardly be distinguished from evaluation. In this sense, to justify an act is to say that it is good or right. I differ from the traditional use and insist that no act or conduct can be justified. Infliction of punishment is a human conduct and as such it is absurd to ask for its justification. I hold the view that to justify is to give reason, and it is only a statement or an assertion behind which we can put forth reason. Infliction of pain is an act behind which the agent may have purpose or intention but not reason. So, it is not punishment, but rather statements concerning punishment that we can justify.
would reject even the notion of deliberating about the act of murder in such a
The use of torture is inhumane and unorthodox and should never have to be used, torture is never acceptable. People that are tortured have one motive, get revenge on the person that hurt them. Torture can corrupt people and cause them to lose their mind. They will want revenge for suffering and they’ll go right to the people that did that to them. For example, one of the largest uses of torture is in the army.
Around the world and around the clock, human rights violations seem to never cease. In particular, torture violations are still rampant all over the world. One regime, the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, establishes a strong elaboration of norms against torture. Despite its efforts, many countries still outright reject its policies against torture while other countries openly accept them, but surreptitiously still violate them. The US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia have all failed to end torture despite accepting the provisions of the Convention.
On the opposite side, there are people very much in favor of the use of torture. To them, torture is a “morally defensible” interrogation method (8). The most widely used reason for torture is when many lives are in imminent danger. This means that any forms of causing harm are acceptable. This may seem reasonable, as you sacrifice one life to save way more, but it’s demoralizing. The arguments that justify torture usually are way too extreme to happen in the real world. The golden rule also plays a big rol...
Kant proclaimed that one must “act in such a way that you treat that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means." Thus, the act of torture treats another as a means to achieve an end and is morally reprehensible. Furthermore, Kant emphasizes the unique value of human life, agreeing with the Christian ethical principle of “The Golden Rule”, "Do to others what you want them to do to you.”