In recent discussions on torture, a disputable issue has been whether torture is wrong. On one side of the argument, some people claim that torture is wrong in all situations no matter the circumstance. From this point of view, many people such as Philip B. Heymann believe that “the overall, longer-term cost of any system authorizing torture, openly or tacitly, would far outweigh its occasional, short term benefits” (536). Basically, the major long lasting effects that are a result of using torture are more drastic than the positive effects that are only interim. From a conflicting position, people are okay with torture being used in the means if innocent people are at risk. In the words of Michael Levin “there are situations in which torture is not …show more content…
Heymann should consider the question. What would he do if his innocent family member was in danger and he had the chance to torture and find a way to stop it? Heymann would most likely answer that question with “if we approve torture in one set of circumstances, isn’t every country then free to define its own exceptions, applicable to Americans as well as its own citizens? (535). He is saying torturing would set a bad example and that the effects would result in other countries and using torture with the United States included. Most countries that we have been at war with, wouldn’t hesitate to use torture. Recently, ISIS released videos of beheadings, how is that any different than torture? Beheadings are more brutal than some torture methods. And torture does not necessarily mean the person would die. Also, most famously the Japanese tortured there POW’s captured in labor camps during WWII. Torture is everywhere already and if we stopped using torture, that does not mean other countries will. If we stop torturing, the terrorist will not fear being captured. They would be able to freely walk around and spread their ideas and plan attacks without worrying about being caught or captured and sent to
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
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.
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
Is the intentional pain that an individual experiences justified if there is the potential to save the lives of many? Torture is the most used weapon in the “war against terrorism” but does it work? The purpose of this essay is to identify what the motives for torturing are, the effectiveness of torture, and important issues with the whole process of torture.
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.
Is it morally right or is it wrong to use torture to gain information during interrogation of suspected terrorists or detainees? It is a difficult ethical question that people in the United States are debating. Our government implemented its initial anti-terrorism measures shortly after 9/11 attacks occurred. The United States has found a way to justify the use of torture on suspected terrorists. Despite opposition of the Constitution, international treaties and Supreme Court rulings, justification for using it was hidden behind the curtain of utilitarianism. One of the landmark Supreme Court decisions was from Brown v. Mississippi and it states, “These measures outweighed many individual rights, including due-process rights and the
...less outside of intimidation. Currently we are debating whether torture would be a useful tool in society, but some have solved the answer for us many years ago. Those who commit crimes are often willing to sacrifice their life to keep the secret. Torture simply lowers us to their standards and facilitates increased terrorist activity in the long run. Why put salt on the wound when you have a Band-aid? Torturing cannot be morally justified.
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
Now, let’s say you do choose to torture this man, not only are the people directly in this situation going to be affected, but also the rest of the nation. We need to ask ourselves, what is going to be the true outcome? This includes thinking about how the enemy is going to react and how the nation is going to react. Torturing this man shames our nation as a whole, scars our repu...
The author’s research focuses on Harvard professors Philip B. Heymann and Juliette N. Kayyem’s book Protecting Liberty in an Age of Terror. This book supports banning torture and CID through authorization by the President of the United States. However, even though the two professors believe that the use of torture can be minimalized, Roth does not trust that the president can decrease the instances of torture. Roth goes on to detail how the Bush administration refused to support torture, but they narrowly defined it so that only pain similar to the loss of a bodily organ constituted as torture. Similarly, Israel permitted the use of slight physical pressure, which the author defines as a situation of CID that morphs into torture. Moreover, Roth criticizes the Bush administration’s detention of American citizens and other non-Americans in prisons such as Guantanamo Bay without probable cause or sufficient evidence. In general, the author’s use of a critical tone when analyzing of the Bush administration make him less credible. Overall, this article will support the thesis that claims the practice of torture is unethical and
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 all have failed to end torture despite accepting the provisions of the Convention.
A widely popular argument against torture methods in the United States deals with the assumption that terrorists, or any form of enemy combatant that would wield terrorist style attacks, look upon how we as a nation employ torture techniques and attempt to cite it against us while claiming Americans are hypocrites against their own moral standards. They use this technique to then aid and assist them in recruiting newer soldiers or terrorists to their cause against America. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra in our recent history, including from the President himself. Moreover, as per the norm, it excuses the violent actions of the extremists or terrorists and blames America for the evil that others have done. Terrorists do not need America’s perceived use of torture to hate America. As Richard Cheney asserts in a speech he delivered in July of 2009:
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...