The use of torture has become a prominent matter of dispute as we enter an age of the global war on terror. The debate on whether it has become morally permissible to torture terrorists is argued by many as the legitimacy of such actions are brought into question in a world where global terror is outstanding. With the use of the ticking time bomb scenario, some make a desirable case that in special circumstances, there is a right to torture individuals implicated is acts of mass violence. Yet many would still argue that there are an array of inconsistencies hidden within the ticking bomb scenario and there are no circumstances where torture can be morally permissible, no matter what the consequences may hold.
The ticking time bomb scenario is simplistic. A bomb has been planted in a highly populated city, we don't know where it has been situated but we have the suspected terrorist in custody. Time is running out and we have no answers to the location. The ticking time bomb scenario outlines that in this situation, it would be justifiable to torture the suspect if it meant saving thousands of lives. (Buffachi, Arrigo, 2006) This scenario indicates various reasons to legitimise torture and provides desirable and even heroic qualities in committing the act. Though it initially appears as a persuasive argument of heroic actions of the good of thousands over the good of the one, it raises several issues on whether or not it is still morally permissible to torture no matter what the scenario implies. Though the morality of the act in this scenario is riddled with inconsistencies and fictitious outcomes, it has become the prime support in arguments that justify the use of torture in the 21st century war on terror.
Some would say th...
... middle of paper ...
... of allowing torture to take place in these exceptions alone creates grounds to reject the scenario based on the wider consequences of allowing torture to become routine. Many arguments on why the scenario does not give anyone the right to torture a suspect also stem from the assumptions that the suspect is indeed guilty of the crime and that they will indeed deliver the information needed. Bufacchi & Arrigo (2006) agree with this assumption but would also depict that because no one else has yet to propose a quicker fix to the ticking bomb scenario without torture, it is the winning idea because it is the best they have. (pg. 367) Yet, this cannot justify the use of torture on an individual because not only is it a direct violation of their basic rights as a human being, there are too many factors to account in the scenario to completely justify the use of torture.
I am reading Bomb by Steve Sheinkin. At the beginning of the book, Oppenheimer, who is the main chemical scientist in the novel, sees the effects of the Great Depression on his pupils when they cannot buy chemistry textbooks. During Oppenheimer’s time as a professor, the Nazis discovered the splitting of the uranium atom. When Albert Einstein found out that about the discovery the Nazis did, he informs President Roosevelt about how the Nazis plan to develop atomic weapons. Harry Gold who is a Communist spy, starts to work with the KGB. And starts to steal ideas and projects from the American Uranium Committee.
Clay Dillow’s “To Catch a Bombmaker” was published by Popular Science in October 2015. This article educated the reader about the FBI’s Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center— a key aspect in the fight against terrorism. Dillow focused on ethos and logos to strengthen the validation of his claim concerning the importance of the TEDAC and was successful in persuading the reader to believe in its significance as well. He used expert quotes from FBI agents to give the article credibility; In addition, he presented statistical data in a clear and concise manner and gave many factual cases in which the TEDAC facilitated the government in their pursuit of terrorist and bomb makers. As proven by Dillow in “How to Catch a Bombmaker,” the Terrorist
A young scientist who was very smart and intelligent was the creator of a bomb that killed millions. The bomb was the most powerful weapon that was ever manufactured. He changed the course of World War II. This man is Robert Oppenheimer, creator of the atomic bomb. The book “Bomb” by Steve Sheinkin, is a book that includes teamwork and how Americans made a deadly bomb that changed the course of the war. The book engages the reader through how spies share secret information with enemies. Because the physicists were specifically told not to share any information, they were not justified in supplying the Soviet Union with the bomb technology.
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
Many people believe they could never commit the crime of torture; yet, Milgram, along with many others, have discovered that the converse is true. At the beginning of his piloted experiment, Milgram predicted virtually all the participants would refuse to continue. He was proven wrong when twenty-five out of forty participants continued past the point of 150 volts (80). He surmised, as the experiment progressed from the piloted study to the regular series, the total out come of average persons response was the same as they had observed in the prior study--solidifying the thought even your "average Joe" is capable of torture (81). While Milgram supports this legitimate thought with facts, stories, and examples, news and world reporter Szegedy-Maszak simply states "...Everyman is a potential torturer"(76). In correspondence with both Milgram and
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
The United States of America’s use of the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has spurred much debate concerning the necessity, effectiveness, and morality of the decision since August 1945. After assessing a range of arguments about the importance of the atomic bomb in the termination of the Second World War, it can be concluded that the use of the atomic bomb served as the predominant factor in the end of the Second World War, as its use lowered the morale, industrial resources, and military strength of Japan. The Allied decision to use the atomic bomb not only caused irreparable physical damage on two major Japanese cities, but its use also minimized the Japanese will to continue fighting. These two factors along
Levin wants to change the negative views that society placed on torture so that, under extreme circumstances torture would be acceptable. He begins his essay with a brief description of why society views the topic of torture as a negative thing. He disagrees with those views, and presents three different cases in which he thinks torture must be carried out with provides few reasons to support his claim. He uses hypothetical cases that are very extreme to situations that we experience in our daily lives. From the start, Levin makes it perfectly clear to the reader that he accepts torture as a punishment. He tries to distinguish the difference between terrorists, and victims in order stop the talk of terrorist “right,” (648). Levin also explains that terrorists commit their crimes for publicity, and for that reason they should be identified and be tortured. He ends his essay by saying that torture is not threat to Western democracy but rather the opposite (Levin
closing statement, I feel that eventually, the case for torture is an exercise that is acceptable
After reading and looking back on my notes for the book, The Bomb, Written by Theodore Taylor, and focusing on conflict and how it connects to the theme, I am beginning to realize that there are many themes present throughout the book. This book is about the story of a young boy names Sorry who tries to stop the American Government from testing a nuclear bomb of his home on Bikini Atoll. However, only now do I realize that there are many different themes for this book that contradict each other. For example, the main theme of the book is, sometimes you need to accept your fate because it is inevitable. However another theme that can also work for this book is, never be settled with what you have and always try harder. And besides these two themes there are multiple other themes that are present throughout the book, such as, self sacrifice is sometimes necessary for the benefit of other people.
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 article's credibility. In Levin’s first instance, he depicts a scenario where a terrorist, who had placed an atomic bomb in the city, was captured. This atomic bomb is to explode in 2 hours if his demands are not met. Levin believes this is a situation in which torture is the only way of extracting the location of the bomb before it explodes.
The use of the atomic bomb has a big enough impact to end the war.It can also serve as a warning message for the rest of the world, particularly the Soviet Union.World War II has gone on for long enough, the world is in a good enough position in the war to end it. The only major concern for ending the war is Japan. Their opinion on the matter is a conditional surrender, where they stop fighting, but some conditions must be met. Although it has to be an unconditional surrender in order to prevent something like this from happening again.The use of an atomic bomb to end this conflict would work because of the physical appearance of the results have a psychological effect that can’t really be achieved with anything else. Another thing to consider
Applebaum believes that torture should not be used as a means of gaining information from suspects. Applebaum's opinion is supported through details that the practice has not been proven optimally successful. After debating the topic, I have deliberated on agreeing with Applebaum's stance towards the torture policy. I personally agree with the thought to discontinue the practice of torture as a means of acquiring intel. I find it unacceptable that under the Bush Administration, the President decided prisoners to be considered exceptions to the Geneva Convention. As far as moral and ethical consideration, I do not believe that it is anyone's right to harm anyone else, especially if the tactic is not proven successful. After concluding an interview with Academic, Darius Rejali, Applebaum inserted that he had “recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway.” There are alternative...
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.
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...