Pros And Cons Of Torture

Elijah Damacela draft three

A Conclusion to the Debate on Torture

After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the fear of another catastrophic event in the United States became a greater concern for the American public. To subdue the growing fear amongst the public, political officials across America were compelled to address new debates on the nation’s tactics to prevent another atrocity. Possibly the most heated, and still argued debate, is that of the appropriateness of the employment of torture to acquire necessary intelligence; and as in most debates in our nation, our political representatives are bitterly divided concerning the issue. While many claim that the use of torture in any case is morally wrong, more radical advocates for the use of torture believe that it is “morally mandatory”. This ethical dilemma, however, must come to a conclusion if the nation is to improve its moral and diplomatic relations. In order for such a conclusion to be

Torture is defined as the practice of inflicting severe physical pain or psychological anxiety in order to punish or obtain desirable information. It is a common argument amongst supporters of torture, that the use of ‘non-lethal’ psychological torture, when compared to the brutality of physical excruciation, is the lesser of the two evils. This belief, however, stands on the basis that its effects are not immediately apparent. The consequences of psychological abuse are arguably just as lethal as its physical counterparts. For example, the practice of performing a “mock execution” is essentially the act of making a victim believe they are dying or at the very least about to face death; more specifically “waterboarding” which causes the victim to believe they are being drowned. This form of abuse cannot be perceived as less harmful than that of “legitimate torture” and should never be used as an alternative to physical