Michael Levin's article on "The Case for Torture." is an article which mainly discusess the use of torture as necessary and important in order to safeguard the lives of the many innocents and society and, is justifiable. In one of his examples, he verbally states that the mass murder of millions of an innocent crowd by a terrorist justifies the use an act of torture to stop such a brutal and barbaric act. This is a question of ethics on the action of wreak havoc. We need to look at the scenario of a war.
The dependability of a government isn't what it once. Everyone in the world needs to unite... ... middle of paper ... ...ets. (Wilcox Par 6) The challenge for governments is to persuade people that the killing of civilians by terrorists is absolutely unacceptable whatever the political motive. Winning the hearts and minds of citizens against terrorism so that terrorists can be isolated and exposed is thus a vital part of successful counterterrorism.
Pakistan is divided into people who see the country as modern and/o... ... middle of paper ... ...do believe that terrorism in Pakistan can be put to an end, obviously resulting in the stop of the acts of terrorism that the Pakistanis take action in. These acts of terrorism result in the death of people, in which the church does not at all accept and neither do I. With a huge impact on society, terrorism is one of the most important moral issues because of what has caused it and the effects of those causes. Terrorism is an act that meant to achieve a goal. For Americans, 9/11 did not achieve a goal, but to al-Qaeda (and possibly other terrorists groups) it did achieve a goal.
Not only does terrorism cause deaths, but it also negatively affects a country’s economy and religion. Terrorism causes more problems rather than “solving” problems terrorists may have. The first reason for asserting that terrorism cannot be justified is the slaughter of innocent people, which isn’t moral. Whether people uninvolved are killed isn‘t a concern to terrorists. Terrorism ignores the lives of many people completely and this directly conflicts with people who are close to those who have died in an accident due to terrorism.
The terrorists themselves have been labeled enemies of humanity, but are such accusations true? Are they really criminals committing immoral and unjust attacks, or are they just fighting a war the best way they can? Questions like this are difficult to answer impartially. The general population of the world has such negative views on terrorism because we are the victims, the targets. But to the people committing these acts they must be morally acceptable.
If we refuse to do so, it will say you are terrorists. The US does not consider it a terrorist act to throw atomic bombs at nations thousands of miles away, when it would not be possible for those bombs to hit military troops only. The US does not consider it terrorism when hundreds of thousands of our sons and brothers in Iraq died for lack of food or medicine. It is known that every action has its reaction. If the American presence continues, and that is an action, then it is natural for reactions to continue against this presence.
When the government metes out vengeance disguised as justice, it becomes complicit with killers in devaluing human life and human dignity.””("Is the Death Penalty Immoral?," sec. 3) The death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, and thus unconstitutional as well as immoral, and should be abolished.
American civil liberties are defined as civil rights designed with the purpose of limiting government intervention in citizen’s affairs (Civil Liberties 1). After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, the United States government enacted new policies that did not universally coincide with the civil liberties Americans are guaranteed. Several of the new procedures enacted were unnecessary and caused average American citizens to have to live without the civil liberties they are assured that they will receive. Also in an attempt to infiltrate terrorist organizations, interrogation tactics have become brutal and grotesque. Despite the victim’s criminal status, basic rights the law guarantees such people are being defiled.
These types of groups should not be allowed to roam free to cause havoc on innocent civilians around the world. We cannot let the Taliban continue to kill because they could easily do the same thing again to us or other nations. In order to produce the most good we must quash these terrorist groups before they can strike again. I think that the United States should use force to capture the Taliban terrorist g... ... middle of paper ... ...vilians from Taliban forces (Boston Globe). This also will lead to a higher accidental civilian death rate, but this as well is justified.
In this scenario there is substantial moral justification for torture. Consider this: law enforcement believes that torturing the target will save thousands of innocents; law enforcement knows of no other way to save those lives; loss of life is imminent; the lives about to be lost are innocent; the target has no good reason to murder the victims; the target is known to be morally responsible for planning and arming the device and if it explodes, that individual will be responsible for the murder of thousands. The target is liable on two aspects. First, the target is causing law enforcement to make a choice between two evils, torturing the target or allowing innocents to die. Were the target to do what people consider the right thing and disclose the location of the bomb, law enforcement would not have to pursue interrogation techniques.