Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Using drones to combat terrorism
Torture and ethics paper
Torture and ethics paper
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
Can reliable information come from torture? Is torture an effective means of social control? Do the negative effects outweigh the potential benefits? Is the torturing of terror suspects legal? How is torture justified in the general public?
Modivation
The motivation to torture is guided by gut feelings and “what if” stories. Using torture to gain information involves a tremendous amount of assumptions. The Torturer is assuming that there is an actual danger, they are assuming that they have the correct person as well as assuming their level of their involvement and guilt in the situation, and lastly by using torture they are assuming that there is no alternative way to extract the information.
There is no way to be certain that you are
…show more content…
However the level of skepticism would will be present because the torturer would have to spend valuable time determining if the information received is authentic or not.
Effectiveness
How is it justified?
According to a pool from the Washington post fifty nine percent of Americans think that torture is acceptable. So why is this? Maybe
Process of torture There are a lot of disturbing aspects of torture, just thinking about the dehumanizing, disfiguring process is enough to make any normal persons stomach turn. However when I say there are disturbing aspects of torture I am referring to the process (or lack of). There is no protocol for torture. There are no trial, no rules, guidelines, or script that a torturer must follow. It is free
Some believe that even in the most dire of situations, the act of torturing a prisoner to obtain information is not the most effective or efficient way to glean accurate information of a threat or terrorist group; experts have said that it is actually a very inefficient way to go about this and even that it is only on rare occasions that this results in useful, accurate information. However, there are also those who believe the exact opposite; that the only way to get information from a terrorist, or someone believed to be involved in terrorist activity, is to mentally break them down until they have suffered enough to surrender any information they might know or to the point where they just say whatever is necessary for the “interrogation” to stop, as in
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
There is not (as shown above) nor should there be any exception to the prohibition on torture. If there was an exception for either “necessity” or “official position” for torture, nations around the world could claim necessity in any conceivable circumstance, and the leaders of those nations could order torture whenever convenient, with no legal implications. Relaxing the total prohibition on “torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment” would completely undermine the prohibition, essentially permitting the use of torture whenever countries saw fit to use it.
Torture is the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless person. Torture in any form is used to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure.
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.
The ongoing debate between torture and enhanced interrogation techniques is, has been and always will be a hot controversial topic. Whether between different political views, cultures, world leaders or the citizens and society in general, the issue will always be of great importance. Some believe the two are the same, while others feel they differ. Either way, the methods and effectiveness are the major points for concern.
The moral issue of torture is one that has come under scrutiny by many national and international organizations as of late. To talk about torture one must really understand what torture is. As taken from Dictionary.com “1.a. Infliction or severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. 2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony. 3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.” This is just the literal meaning of the word but doesn’t entail the great horror that usually accompanies torture. As stated in the “Ticking Bomb” example given on the instruction sheets, “The interrogation won’t be pretty, and the prisoner may never recover. Shall we do whatever is necessary?” On what moral level is bringing a human being to humiliation, unbearable physical and mental abuse, and most of the time an ultimate end ever an acceptable practice? Torture should be as unthinkable as slavery. In principle it is: since World War II, governments the world over have agreed to ban torture without exception, even when at war or facing acts of terrorism. International treaties banning torture and other, inhuman, and degrading practices are among the most widely ratified treaties in existence. It is not just the United States that endorses these practices; it is over 150 counties according to the United Nations expert on torture Theo van Boven. Since the United States has gone to “war on terror” in Afghanistan, the president and other top officials seem to think that we are not actually “at war” rather these detainees are outside the realm of prisoners of war (POW) status and they don’t have rights under the Geneva Conventions. Now governments are returning alleged terrorists or national security suspects to countries where they are at risk of torture or ill treatment. This is just a reminder as to why the U.S. did not join the International Criminal Court because they have the “bad man” mindset knowing that they will or already use these tactics. There are many reasons as to why torture is immoral and three of these such reasons are; torture is an unreliable source of information and can work against a government, torture is illegal under most every nations’ laws, and torture is just plain immoral and that is the reason it is illegal.
A main concern that torture has, or at least should have, is its ineffectiveness. One has to look at every aspect of the torture that is being done. For example, what kind of torture, to whom, and who is inflicting the torture. If torture is being done by some one who hates a certain race or simply has hate in them, then the torture that
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.
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
For many decades this question has found its way in the minds of many leaders, presidents, and even average day citizens. This question, when answered, could lead to many horrific deaths, or many lives saved. This simple question has been a debate topic for the past 50 years and counting. Is torture ever justified? Torture has been practiced since medieval times as a punishment for a crime.
In a world where all eyes are upon America to uphold righteousness, no situation should ever require the alteration of moral standards. Torture is an outright violation of human dignity and rights. No one in their right mind would ever endorse the torture of their fellow man or woman. It defies the virtues upon which America should pride itself on. Furthermore, torture as an institution is proven to be ineffective and its continued use will corrupt American ideology (Mayerfield 2008). Even in the ticking time bomb and slow-fuse time bomb scenarios (Krauthammer 2005), where many innocent civilian lives are at stake, torture is intolerable. As the world continues to make progress towards greener pastures, there is no place for torture and America will leave it behind.
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.
Our society is like a bed of flowers; when a harmful weed sprouts we eliminate it before it harms the rest. Criminals are the weeds, and if they are not taken care of, they will only grow in numbers and consume the rest of us. The death penalty has been a popular issue for many years. Thirty three states currently support the death penalty verses seventeen that do not (Death Penalty Information Center). There is a great deal of opposition towards capital punishment, and the most popular opposing arguments are that Capital punishment is unconstitutional, it is biased towards race and class, and many innocent people are wrongfully executed due to mistakes in the system. These arguments are false, and are cleverly constructed with the help of logical fallacy’s and rhetoric. Capital punishment should be adopted by all fifty states because it discourages crime, and is a great representation of justice, and a moral punishment.