I seek to provide an analysis on Michael Levin's article on "The Case for Torture." This article mainly articulates that the use of torture is necessary in order to safeguard the lives of the many innocents and is justifiable. In his given example, he argues that the mass murder of millions of innocent people by a terrorist justifies the use of torture to stop such an extreme barbaric act. Indeed this is a question of moral on the action of inflicting pain. Take a look at the scenario of a war. We will never say that it is immoral to let out soldiers kill or inflict pain on the enemies in a war because we know that it is the only way to safeguard our nation's sovereignty and the lives of our people. The motives are very clear as mentioned. Thus it is justifiable to let our soldiers kill those who intended to harm the lives of our citizens. When a terrorist has clearly intended to harm the lives of millions, why is it not justified then, to inflict pain on the terrorist, with the motive of wanting to protect the lives of many more innocent people? Surely it is! Take a look at this argument: Constitution seeks to protect the interest of one's rights. To torture a person is to breach that protection of interest. Therefore, Torture is unconstitutional. Torturing is however, unconstitutional only when the motives behind it are deemed reasonably immoral. We should then of course not inflict pain mainly just to force the other party to confess the truth to a matter if he does not wish to. But what if the truth will then lead to the location of say, a timed-bomb, which will then be diffused in time to prevent an entire office block to collapse, bringing with it a thousand or more lives? Should the constitution then continue to protect the terrorist against such torture? The author said that millions of lives outweigh constitutionality. Surely it is not justiable for a constitution to uphold the rights of a terrorist, but at the expense of the thousands that, too, holds the right to live never asked to be placed in such danger. Again, the moral of one's action must be reviewed in such cases. On a personal note, I feel that to sacrifice one that is convicted, in exchanged for the many innocents, is a permissible one.
Michael Levin’s essay “The Case for Torture” is trying to express many things but one of the most important is to show that sometimes torture is necessary. During the story, Levin resorts to lots of arguments, with the speculation that torture is only reasonable when saving lives, he demonstrates three situations in which torture may be okay. The author is basically saying that he agrees with torture if it means saving innocent lives. But we can’t always be too sure about that. Levin’s argument states many of theoretical cases like an atomic bomb, a terrorist on a plane and a newborn baby being kidnapped. He gives three scenarios for the reader to think about.
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
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
Michael Levin's article on "The Case for Torture." is an article which mainly discusess the use
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 to think 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 article's academic standing and arguably renders the entire case futile.
The issue of torture is nothing new. It was done in the past and it’s done now in the 21st century. Without saying one side is right and the other side is wrong, let us discuss the part that we agree on and find common ground. We as Americans want to protect Americans from harms. So how do we prevent that from happening without torturing? It is impossible to get answer without some sort of questioning and intimidation techniques, since we know captured prisoners during war are not easily going to give up information. We know the enemy we face doesn’t follow the Geneva Convention or any law that pertains to war, so does that mean we shouldn’t also follow the Geneva Convention also, which prohibits torture? Of course not, because we want to be example for the world. Republicans argue that we have to do whatever is necessary to keep Americans safe, and Democrats argue it goes against our values and makes us look bad. We as Americans, as leader of the free world we
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.
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...
Torture can prevent the attacks resulting in terror or can go and prove no one, no one can infringe the right of Americans in the result of another attack, and therefore torture is justifiable. The similarities between ISIS and Al Qaeda is scary and torture needs to be in the back pocket of all officials to prevent similar disasters. The clock stopped ticking on 9-11, and anyone on the street can tell oneself where they were the minute they heard. The use of torture could save the lives of thousands, send the message that America is in charge, and can become more commonly accepted in the eyes of disaster. A ticking bomb could be going off at any time, it could destroy a spouse, a son, a daughter, a friend, a neighbor, or maybe the threat is to oneself, torture could get the information to destroy the bomb before it destroys one’s life. Torture is justifiable.
Though torture and enhanced interrogation are similar in that they both force information from captured individuals, they are basically different due to motives as well as extreme measures used. Enhanced interrogation is used by the United States for certain interrogation methods including “walling, facial hold, facial slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and water boarding” (Quigley 3). This method of interrogation is protected against international criminal prosecution. However, torture is known as the practice of inflicting “cruel, inhumane, degrading infliction of severe pain” (Beehner 1) and is “often used to punish, to obtain information or a confession, to take revenge on a person or persons or create terror and fear” (Quiroga 7). Like enhanced interrogation, torture can be used to retrieve information. However, the motive of using torture is not always to save lives. Although enhanced interrogation us...
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.
The use of torture has always been a hot topic of moral and ethical discussion. Typically, the discussion is not about whether or not torture is good, but rather if there is ever a morally acceptable situation in which torture should be allowed to occur. Does a criminal’s deeds strip him of basic human rights and make it morally okay for him to be physically and mentally abused? Do certain situations such as war make torture acceptable? It is generally agreed upon that torture is a terrible violation of a person and their rights; the common thread among moral questions such as these is if there are any times when torture could be considered morally acceptable. In order to analyze this moral dilemma, an ethical system is commonly used as a
As we analyze this scenario through the eyes of Kantian Deontology, it is imperative that we recognize that, for our purposes, the lives of the civilians in question are irrelevant. This is because, as stated earlier, the consequences of one’s actions are meaningless; it is only the intent and will that truly matter in deciding an actions morality. We are only concerned with discerning the moral nature of torture itself. By removing the possibility of a terrible outcome, Kant leads us to a clear verdict on torture. In response to the first question that Kantian’s must ask themselves, it appears that torture fails. Torture is certainly not a maxim that many would want to will into the natural law. The second formulation of the categorical imperative, the basis of the second question that Kantian’s need to consider, is where torturing for information is declared absolutely impermissible. By torturing someone for information, specifically the location of several bombs, we are disregarding their rational autonomy by using them merely as a means only (Reitan). There is one scenario where the torture of the criminal could be considered morally acceptable. This is supported by Kant’s stance on capital punishment. Some may find this surprising, but Immanuel Kant was a
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...