Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Principles of virtue ethics
Principles of virtue ethics
Principles of virtue ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Principles of virtue ethics
How far will one person go to gather intelligence that could possibly save thousands of lives? After the terrorist attacks on September 11th a philosophical debate ignited on whether or not torture could ever be justified. Is torture ever morally permissible? Shortly after these horrific attacks some began to say the answer is yes. Others such as deontologist say nothing has changed since the day before. Furthermore, U.S. instances of torture are rooted in a longer history before September 11, such as torture regimes in U.S. prisons and jails. Two of the most common theories regarding torture are utilitarianism and deontology, however some say they provide and insignificant purchase of the problem and that virtue ethics can be more effective. Both utilitarianism and deontology only make use of hypothetical situations that only arise in moments of extremity. Advocates of virtue ethics discuss situations that account for multiple (almost all) situations of life. The use of human torture for the outcome of happiness is said to be selfish and even egotistic at times. The four main virtues of virtue ethics are courage, temperance, justice, and prudence. These virtues will set a standard not only for when to torture, but also why if at all. Torture is a voluntary act that is seen to some as futile. The two main parameters of the debate discuss if under certain circumstances, to retain crucial information, that it is permitted to torture only to prevent greater harm, or if torture should be completely prohibited. According to dictionary.com torture is “the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty”. Some describe these methods as barbaric and bru...
... middle of paper ...
...ssed in part of this essay, torture can be misguiding. Criminals often lead the torturer on with false information. In other words, there are other more effective uses of interrogation than torture. On the contrary, the short term benefits that torture rarely provides does not outweigh the long term effects. It has a destructive physiological effect, instigates future discrepancies, and does not demonstrate a strong country. Justifying torture even in severe cases undermines the standards for human rights and degrades a society as a whole. In conclusion torture cannot be morally justified on consequentialist, and even circumstantial, grounds. It is self-contradictory to remove human rights in order to protect them. Fundamental values cannot be sacrificed when addressing torture, a vice such as that can harm the United States much more than any terrorist cell could.
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 about 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 1984.
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
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.
Guantanamo Bay is located at the southeastern tip of Cuba; it is a United States owned territory dating back to the Spanish American war. The territory contains a high security military detention center and a functional base. The detention center houses high priority Al Qaeda operatives and conspirators to the September 11th attacks on the world trade center. Guantanamo bay is an important asset to keeping the United States safe. In recent years the operation of the base has been slowed down due to the efforts of president Obama. He vowed to shut the base down and move the high risk targets to a high security prison in the United States main land. Without Guantanamo bay the United States wouldn’t be able to contain high risk detainees that the base currently holds. Guantanamo bay should stay open.
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.
Does the federal government deserve to determine who gets the death penalty? It is debatable whether or not capital punishment should be expunged. Sending someone to the death, it is an important and serious decision to make. Capital punishment is cruel and unusual punishment. The thought of taking someone’s life is unjustified. Is capital punishment, even beneficial for our society? Capital punishment should be abolished because people can change, their other forms of punishment, and every person has the right to live, regardless of what they have done.
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.
While one person lays with their wrists circumscribed to the worn leather of the gurney, another person holds two skin-piercing needles. The individual holding the needles is an inexperienced technician who obtains permission from the United States federal government to murder people. One needle is held as a precaution in case the pain is too visible to the viewers. Another dagger filled with a lethal dosage of chemicals is inserted into the vein that causes the person to stop breathing. When the cry of the heart rate monitor becomes monotone, the corrupt procedure is complete. Lying in the chair is a corpse when moments ago it was an individual who made one fatal mistake that will never get the chance to redeem (Ecenbarger). Although some people believe that the death
and it quite possibly be a reality. Therefore the idea of torture as being illegal is redirected with loopholes and terms defined.
The death penalty, capital punishment, in the words of the Oxford English Dictionary is the legally authorized execution of an individual as discipline for a crime (“Death Penalty”). Exactly one hundred and sixty-nine years before the establishment of the United States of America, in year 1607, George Kendall was the first to meet his fate to a firing squad in Jamestown, Virginia as retribution for discord, mutiny, and espionage (Green 1). Some four hundred and seven years later, the fate of the death penalty itself has become one rather controversial—in the landmark Supreme Court case Furman v. Georgia (1972), the implementation of absolute justice was ruled unconstitutional; yet a mere four years later, this decision was overruled. One thousand
One of the most repetitive and controversial topics discussed in the criminal justice system, is the death penalty. Capital punishment has been a part of our nation’s history since the creation of our constitution. In fact, as of January 1st, 2016, 2,943 inmates were awaiting their fate on death row (Death Penalty Information Center). Throughout my life, I have always been a strong advocate for the death penalty. During the majority of my undergraduate degree, I was a fierce supporter of capital punishment when discussing the topic in classes. However, throughout many criminal justice courses, I found myself in the minority, regarding the abolishment of the death penalty. While debating this topic, I would always find myself sympathetic to the victims and their families, as one should be, wanting those who were responsible for heinous crimes to
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.
In conclusion, the convention against torture, has brought many people together, and has informed many people of the horrible tortures which go on everywhere from the US to Syria. It has tried to set fine lines which prohibit torture under all circumstances. However, since there is no governing body over countries, it remains difficult to enforce the human right standards sought after by the Convention against torture. The convention has therefore done a good job at identifying the torturers. This has in turn lessened the amount of those persecuted. It will remain a gradual process to eliminate torture from all countries, but nevertheless a necessity, in the quest for universal human rights. Torture will continue until all countries decide for themselves, and not from a third party convention that freedom from torture is a human right everyone deserves.
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.