Torture and Ethics Paper
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).
Under the right circumstances, the use of
…show more content…
Another reason why some utilitarian thinkers will support torturing these suspect terrorist because law enforcement is saving American lives. On the other hand, other utilitarian thinks will condemn torturing terrorist because affects a personal moral standards to conduct themselves as a productive citizen (“The ‘ticking time bomb’ problem,” 2014). An additional reason why some utilitarian thinks condemn torturing terrorist because it provokes intense psychological pressure to reveal answers that law enforcement may want to hear that’s incorrect. Furthermore, depending on which utilitarian thinker discussing the use of torturing a terrorist, the action could be justified because it prevents further or future injury. Additionally, other utilitarian thinkers would rebuke this action because hurting another doesn’t help people that have already been injured by a terrorist …show more content…
For example Christians follow the Bible, Jew read the Quran and American citizens follow obey the United States Constitutions and laws. The definition of natural law is principles originated from nature that bind human societies together in the absence of additional positive laws (“Dictionary Natural Law,” n.d.). According to Brecher, Devenney & Winter (2010), the United States Constitution prevents the use of torturing criminals and suspected terrorist.
Since the United State Constitution prevents American citizens from torturing criminals and suspected terrorist why is it law enforcement practice this method? Was torturing criminals and terrorist rejected by 17th century America because the country was founded on biblical teachings? Or has 21st century America decided not to follow the United States natural law because America wants to be the dominant
Capital punishment is not an effective punishment or deterrent for murder or any crime for various reasons. To many prisoners, being detained in a prison is much more of a punishment than death as is it a constant, conscious deprivation of liberty and rights. This idea is represented though US Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh who claimed after dropping his appeals against his death sentence that he would rather die than...
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.
Many people agree with capital punishment and torturing. Capital punishment can be used as a threat, if broken, it will be a promise. Also knowing that there is the possibility of a death sentence gives people the incentive not to commit a crime.Torture is also a very helpful method of punishment. This works in many countries s...
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.
Whether it’s to stop an imminent threat or as a form of response to fear and discrimination, it is common for states to turn towards torture as a mean of attaining information from someone. Torture has been used since the beginning of states and it is still used in some today. The Romans used torture on its citizens who were suspected of crimes, especially violent crimes. The world used torture as a means of acquiring a confession. The Russian Tsars would use torture in order to extract confessions. Ivan the terrible would torture his subjects for amusement, and Peter the great became paranoid that his own son was planning treason and had him tortured and executed. The Nazis tortured Jews in concentration camps and even tortured and killed
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.
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.
Capital punishment is a difficult subject for a lot of people because many question whether or not it is ethical to kill a convicted criminal. In order to critically analyze whether or not it is ethical, I will look at the issue using a utilitarianism approach because in order to get a good grasp of this topic we need to look at how the decision will impact us in the future. The utilitarianism approach will help us to examine this issue and see what some of the consequences are with this topic of capital punishment. For years, capital punishment has been used against criminals and continues to be used today, but lately this type of punishment has come into question because of the ethical question.
The need to define torture is imperative in light of the different debates of what actually constitutes torture and how one distinguishes it from other means of interrogation and coercive means. A definition across board of torture is that it is “an act that brings suffering, physical and mental, by intentionally inflicting pain on a person with the purpose of obtaining information (Ginbar, 2008, Miller, 2009; Waldron, 2009) Miller further adds by characterising person subjected to torture as being defenceless persons. Furthermore to the purpose of torture is to get a confession and to punish (Miller, 2009). Contrary to what has been defined above, torture is distinguished from abuse because of the extreme complex measures that are conducted and that is complicated ill-treatment. The reasons for the distinction are because with abuse one may or may not be aware of the ill-treatments inflicted upon them whereas torture is degrading and inhumane treatment (Miller, 2009). One can therefore conclude that torture is the highest degree of ill-treatment that can be inflicted on a person short of actually killing them.
(Turner) Let’s look at the first option, torturing the innocent daughter, through the lens of a utilitarian. The pro of this option is saving the lives of 1000 innocent people. The con is torturing 1 innocent person. It is quite obvious that the pro far outweighs the con for this option. For example, each one of the 1000 people would rather be tortured then to die. For the second option the pro is 1 person not being tortured and the con is 1000 people dying. Being the opposite of the first option, it is clear that the con far outweighs the pro. This problem is very straightforward for a true utilitarian, because they do not take in consideration who is doing the harm. The fact that you are directly hurting someone is seen as no different than indirectly harming someone. Therefore the indirect effect on 1000 people far outweighs the direct effect on 1 person. Another reason this problem is simple for a utilitarian, is that there are only two possible options. Most moral problems have many possible choices, and the utilitarian must decide which maximizes happiness, not just which is greater. Since we are 100% certain that these are the only two options, the greater is the
At first glance, Utilitarian moral theories may seem to support the idea of torturing this innocent man. If we look at this situation we see that there is a dilemma of hurting one man, or having to bear the death of many. We may say that since the basis of Utilitarianism is to do what is best for the greater good, then there is no question that we would torture this one man so that we may save thousands. Take a step back and look at this situation from another angle. What truly is the greater good here? Let us focus on the idea that “if punishing John will do no good, then John should go free” (Pojman, 2002, p.109). What is the chance that a captured soldier is going to give away the secret location of the bomb? It is highly likely he has been trained not to speak under any circumstances. If he does not speak then you have just diminished utility for every single person involved.
Can knowingly harming another person ever be justified? Christians are taught that mistreating another human being, no matter what the reason might be, is immoral. If a child were to be kidnapped, and the possible kidnapper was found by authorities, some might argue that torture is a reasonable way to get information about the child’s whereabouts. In this case, torture is defined as purposely causing severe mental or physical pain to another person to obtain information or as punishment for an action (“Definition of Torture”). Although it may seem like an effective way to get the child back alive, it is an unethical way to achieve the goal of saving someone.
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...