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. …show more content…
Its use in counterterrorism efforts by the United States to extort details about terrorist plots is unacceptable. It is a violation of the ideologies outlined by the Declaration of Independence, “certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” (Jefferson 1776) It strips these right from victims and they are forced to face a “living death.” (Sussman 2006) Torture defies the right to life by inflicting severe pain. Torture defies the right of liberty by exploiting a defenseless and non-consenting victim. Torture defies pursuit of happiness by breaking the victim’s will. (Lecture 17, Moser 2015) The best way, and only way, to respect these rights is to put an absolute ban on torture. Notably, the Geneva Conventions, of which now includes every country in the world, require the prosecution of acts of torture. (Mayerfield 2008). This is respected universally, a moral standard that the whole world agrees upon. This being so, there is no right, nor excuse, for any country to make any exceptions to
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.
Torture is something that can cause severe emotional and physical damage along with being a method to compel someone to reveal “valuable” information (“Definition of torture,” n.d.). When a person is being tortured they could also be compel to participate in an activity they don’t want to do (“Definition of torture,” n.d.). Since ancient times torture has been a method used to obtain valuable intelligence. Presently, the use of torture to acquire beneficial facts is a highly controversial topic. Torture is a highly controversial topic because no one knows how effective it is at retrieving information plus it violates human rights and dignity (“Why is Torture Wrong?” 2014).
The topic that covers this essay:: is it morally permissible to torture an innocent child to stop a nuclear threat. I shall defend by stating that it is morally permissible to torture an innocent child by arguing, first, that by torturing a child one can save millions of lives, and secondly that if we torture the child we will be just harming him, not killing him. First I will depict the three approaches to morality presented in this course (Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics and Kant’s). Then I’ll present my own stand and try to support my reasoning with the three moral approaches if possible. Then I’ll continue with a counter argument followed by a conclusion.
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.
“Man masters nature not by force but by understanding. This is why science has succeeded where magic failed: because it has looked for no spell to cast over nature”. From the beginning of time man and nature has been in conflict with one another because, as a whole, there is no cooperating. Each one tirelessly wants its way. The Man is fighting for dominance and nature w never yielding its authority. In American Literature, many authors illustrate this theme in their writing. Specifically the writers Jack London in The Law Of Life, Stephen Crane The Open Boat and Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Fin. Each explores the relationship between humans and nature but with slightly different methods. Mark Twain uses nature in a realistic way, Jack London in a naturalistic way and Stephen Crane constitutes a combination of both.
One main concern with torture is its effectiveness. Many believe that it is effective. However, research has shown that it is not. Research has also shown that torture has been used for money gathering not for the vital information gathering that is said to be used for. In the article, Torture does not make America Safer, It was shown that 86 percent of Guantanamo’s 517 detainees were arrested by The United States Northern alliance and that for every “terrorist” captured the Pakistani would collect $5000. It has also showed that interrogators have a hard time figuring out if what is said by the person being tortured is truth or not. In the article Torture Does Not Make America Safer Alfred W. McCoy, who is a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and author argues that using torture does not protect America. McCoy says that interrogators have a hard time figuring out whether the truth is being told or not.
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.
They have fought for years to abolish torture, but others still fight to use some forms of torture while they attempt keeping the peace. Whether you believe in using torture or not, it still is and will always be an ethical issue. Torture as defined by Jocelyn Pollock is “the deliberate infliction of violence and, through violence, severe mental and/or physical suffering upon individuals” (Pollock, 2014). Christopher Tindale is quoted by Bob Brecher in Torture and the Ticking Bomb, and his description of torture is “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from that person or a third person information or confession, punishing that person for an act committed or suspected to have been committed, or intimidation or dehumanizing that person or other persons” (Brecher,
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.
“International norms in this array of treaties and customary international law impose ranges of obligations on states. For instance, states must not only refrain from using torture, they must also take strong positive measures to prevent and punish torture” (McKay, 2005, pg.1037). If we have the right to be free from torture in here in America we believe that we as Americans shall not be tortured by anyone else in any other country even if it is in a time of war. We believe that people that are in the custody of the American’s shall have the same basic rights that we give our citizens. This means that someone that is a person of high interest or value they shall not be tortured for the simple fact that they may have information that is being looked for. For the longest time torture is something that all nations view as wrong no matter what is going on. Most nations also want what is right for most people and most nations do now want people to be tortured. This means that all nations need to come together and figure out how they feel about torture and work together to make sure that this form of punishment is not being carried out. Everyone has to be onboard for torture to stop
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
What makes a good person good? According to WikiHow, "We should learn to define our own morals ourselves. One of the simplest ways to do so is to love others, and treat them as you would like to be treated. Try to think of others before yourself. Even doing small things daily will greatly enrich and improve your life, and the lives of others around you." This quote shows us what we need to do in order to be what society thinks as, “good". In order to be a good person, you have to do good and moral things in your society consistently. However people might think that by doing one good thing once in a while will automatically make you a “good person”, but in reality it doesn’t.
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.
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...
Beaten, broken, burned, bruised, tortured. Torture is defined as a “deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical and mental suffering by one or more persons acting alone or on the orders of an authority to force another person to yield information, make a confession, etc” (Torture). Throughout history, torture has been used for extreme punishment or unreasonably hateful oppression but more recently torture has been used to force the weaker willed into talking. Torture is an extraneous way to get any information or a needed confession from a suspect and it has very terrible effects on those who do the torturing and those who have suffered/are suffering through tortured. Even though some people believe that using “enhanced interrogation”, or torture, techniques to get some potentially critical information and/or confessions, the negative effects on both the tortured and torturer are far too great to risk. Having to argue over destroying, harming, and beating a person is completely ridiculous though it has been around for a long time.