Pain. This is the one thing that we all do our best to avoid from having to suffer. However, in our misguided way, we still use torture as a means of getting answers. Torture is unacceptable, immoral, and all human beings have rights, and there are other modern ways of punishment and ways to get information from people. Many experts find torture unnecessary and claim that it is not an effective way to get reliable information anymore. Despite the horrible effects torture can have on the victim we forget the effects it has on the person forced to act out the torture. Initially, torture is unacceptable because it is always immoral. The first reason it is is that of the inhumane treatment that this entails. Often the victims are put into a position where to get the torture to stop they have to give up information on something they are suspected of doing, not something they were proven to have done. Torture uses people as a means to an end to get information. Who the victim is or what kind of life they have is disregarded in favor of getting information out of them. Despite the fact that it has been deemed unacceptable by many nations it is still used to this day. This shows how torture is unacceptable based on the fact that it is always immoral. …show more content…
In the first place, this is done by stripping the victims of their dignity, their autonomy and everything that makes up who they are as a human. They are made to feel powerless and helpless by being treated as someone who is subhuman, or not worth having the basic premise of human rights. This is done by removing their ability to fight back against the person torturing them. In every aspect of torture, we remove the victims' rights and the dignity for them to be treated like a human being instead of just something that will give
Torture, as defined by the Oxford dictionary is the action of forcing a person to expose something through pain and suffering (“Definition of Torture in English”, 1). It has been a very effective means of extracting information. The practice of torture was originally used on slaves to increase productivity. It later proved to be an efficient approach to force individuals to disclose information. Many civilizations have used this practice throughout history, each with their own unique way. The Greeks used a technique known as the brazen bull. This approach consisted of a victim to be placed in an iron bull and steamed alive (Blinderman, 1). A very gruesome and agonizing approach but widely accepted at the time because it delivered results. Torture, though a controversial topic today, should be acceptable, because firstly, it can lead to the gathering crucial intelligence, secondly, it is a quick approach to gain said information, and finally, it is can be sanctioned in an ethical aspect.
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.
Torture is the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless person. Torture in any form is used to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure.
The motivation to torture is guided by gut feelings and “what if” stories. Using torture to gain information involves a tremendous amount of assumptions. The Torturer is assuming that there is an actual danger, they are assuming that they have the correct person as well as assuming their level of their involvement and guilt in the situation, and lastly by using torture they are assuming that there is no alternative way to extract the information.
Punishment, when speaking on serious terms, is socially valuable because it deters criminals from repeating their crimes and may keep others from repeating the same acts. If in fact the deterring effect misses its point, it is the fault of the justice system the all the red tape found behind it. At its current standing, the system is viewed as a joke because no authority is taken, no one believes, let alone fears, the system. Both the lengthy time and the high expense result from innumerable appeals, including many technicalities which have little nothing to do with the question of guilt or innocence. If these wasteless amount of appeals were eliminated or at least controlled, then the procedure would be much shorter, less expensive and more
Torture, the most extreme form of human violence, resulting in both physical and psychological consequences. A technique of interrogation that has been proven time and time again to not only be ineffective but also a waste of time. Studies have shown that not only does torture psychologically damage the mind of the victim, but also can hurt the inflictor. If there is proof that torture is useless, why do we still use it? Torture should not be used to get information out of prisoners because of the risk of false information, enemy resistance and utter uselessness.
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.
and it quite possibly be a reality. Therefore the idea of torture as being illegal is redirected with loopholes and terms defined.
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...
...less outside of intimidation. Currently we are debating whether torture would be a useful tool in society, but some have solved the answer for us many years ago. Those who commit crimes are often willing to sacrifice their life to keep the secret. Torture simply lowers us to their standards and facilitates increased terrorist activity in the long run. Why put salt on the wound when you have a Band-aid? Torturing cannot be morally justified.
As Shunzo Majima describes it: “According to Kantian deontology, torture cannot be morally justified if an individual’s humanity and dignity are denied through torture and the torture victim is used merely as a means for achieving the purpose of torture” (Majima, 2012, p. 138). Because of the way torture gravely violates a person’s autonomy and treats them only as a means of getting information or for some other end, it is considered inherently wrong in the eyes of deontology. People who are tortured are no longer seen as human or respected as one; instead, they are seen only as tools that can be manipulated and used in order to achieve a certain result. This, to deontology, is morally
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.
The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a moral able to control his/her own destiny for good or bad behavior. I believe it is an asset to society. The death penalty should not be abolished because it will reduce crime rate, it will save us and the government money, and It helps our society.
Our society is like a bed of flowers; when a harmful weed sprouts we eliminate it before it harms the rest. Criminals are the weeds, and if they are not taken care of, they will only grow in numbers and consume the rest of us. The death penalty has been a popular issue for many years. Thirty three states currently support the death penalty verses seventeen that do not (Death Penalty Information Center). There is a great deal of opposition towards capital punishment, and the most popular opposing arguments are that Capital punishment is unconstitutional, it is biased towards race and class, and many innocent people are wrongfully executed due to mistakes in the system. These arguments are false, and are cleverly constructed with the help of logical fallacy’s and rhetoric. Capital punishment should be adopted by all fifty states because it discourages crime, and is a great representation of justice, and a moral punishment.
Why are people so quick to agree on ending a human being’s life? Have people ever thought of that could have been them being sentenced to death? Death penalty is a death sentence that a person receives when convicted of a capital crime and is punished with execution. Some who have been found guilty and received the death penalty but insist on their innocence are denied their legal rights. They are not allowed to give the person a statement at their trial, they are even denied victim services because they are “pro-defendant,” and they are removed from the courtroom during trials. The death penalty has brought so much controversy and misery people are going back and forth arguing whether or not the death penalty should be abolished,