Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Is torture morally correct
Torture as a moral wrong
The Case Of Torture
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Ethics of Torture: The Fight for Humanity Torture may be an inhumane way to get the information needed to keep the citizens of the United States safe from the attacks that are threatened against them, but there is rarely a course of action that will ensure the safety of a nation’s citizens that doesn’t compromise the safety of another group of people. Nevertheless, we must conserve as much humanity as possible by looking at the situation we are in and ensure that we are approaching the torture in an ethical manner. Although torture is valid on moral grounds, there are many who oppose it, such as Jamie Mayerfeld as he states in his 2009 article “In Defense of the Absolute Prohibition of Torture”. Mr. Mayerfeld writes first about the many …show more content…
In this case of the use of torture in the interrogation of terrorists by the United States, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that the sacrifice of one person 's well-being to obtain information that could be used to save more than one life would be justifiable, but what happens when you complicate this issue? For example, the use of torture can cause strain on foreign alliances as well as further instigate the organization that the person being tortured belongs to. This can lead to a stronger terrorist organization that is more unified. As a result of this effect, we can put more lives in harm’s way. The information could also allow the United States to locate the terrorist organization and eliminate its members while expecting our own casualties. The utilitarian approach would deem torture as ethical if the total amount of casualties, regardless if they are from the U.S, the terrorist organization, or uninvolved third parties, is less than would be without the torture. Unfortunately, there is often not enough information at the time of interrogation to determine if the utilitarian approach is ethically
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.
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.
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.
"Terrorism and Civil Liberty: Is Torture Ever Justified? | The Economist." The Economist - World
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.
There has been an ongoing debate regarding torture and ethical reasoning to determine when or if its ever ok. Modern scholars such as Alan Dershowitz, Sam Harris, and Charles & Gregory Fried, have expressed different ideas on ethical torture. Ideas of ethical reasoning were established by John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant. Even though they did not specifically use torture as an example of ethical reasoning for decision making their rational can still be applied to this topic.
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.
... but it may be seen as a learned willing action to protect. Torturing a person in other words is seen as unconstitutional, but to understand why it is somewhat problematic, just imagine being in the position of a torturer and torture, both predicaments is understandable hard to bare with from a citizen standpoint. Mitigating the stance on torture becomes somewhat impossible, especially for those who carry out the action, and or for those that make the laws and pass them. Justifying this action is undoubtedly hard to differ between moral or immoral actions. In this situation as mentioned before, it seems that the lives of millions of individuals compensate one individual life.
Ever since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, torture has been a controversial issue. This information-gathering technique has been the major topic of every wartime discussion. In the case of a terrorist attack such as that of 9/11, shouldn’t torture be justified as a way to save countless lives? Torture proponents always use the scenario in which thousands, if not millions, of lives are pitted against the well-being of one likely terrorist and his torture. Torture opponents argue that torture is a clear violation of human rights, morals, and ethics. Even though torture is morally and ethically inexcusable and generally frowned upon, it cannot be considered a black-and-white issue. Looking at the big picture, however, due to the traumatizing nature of torture, it must be considered that torture is morally and ethically in the wrong, but torture should be justified in the few, extremely rare situations where no other methods for extracting information are available.
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.
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...
Public administration is concern about the implementation of policy and to meet the government goals. Politics, performance and accountability are fundamental aspects among public administration. Politics refers to the political values that shape the administrative action. Performance considers the effectiveness and efficiency of the public administrator’s process. Meanwhile, accountability is the expectation of account-giving by the actions of the public servants, this depends of the political control over the administrator’s actions (Kettl, 2015). The American public administration is based on ten fundamental principles, which are focuses on effectiveness and accountability of the public servants. These principles are: i) implement the laws