The Case for Torture
If someone asks you to think about the devices of torture you will probably imagine some insane medieval invention. And it will not even occur to you that torture is not just a relic of time. Nowadays nobody is being tortured because it is completely unacceptable, right? Apparently, this is not entirely true. Two academics at Deakin University, Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke, argue that it is justified to use torture when thousand of lives of the innocent are at stake.
Bagaric and Clarke 's argument implies that torture is acceptable when it is the only way to save the life of an innocent person. The roots of their arguments take place from our inviolable right: the right of self-defense, which can be extended to the defense of another individual. They suggest that in a situation where there is a choice between inflicting harm on a wrongdoer and on an innocent person, our society must always opt for inflicting harm on the criminal. Moreover, academics argue that it is universally permissible to torture or even kill the aggressor in order to save his victims.
…show more content…
Despite the contradictory of the topic, Bagaric and Clarke discuss the life-saving torture as a humane practice.
They imply that “reduction of pain should be one the highest-order moral imperatives” and our society needs to utilize a pain-minimization approach. As an example, academics compared two situations where on one side there is a suspect and on the other are many people that he intends to harm. Academics suggest that the pain of the relatives of the victims would immensely outweigh the physical pain that was inflicted on the
suspect. Different contemplations apply when it is used for life-saving and empathetic reasons. Throughout the history society has accepted the assumption that it is justified to kill in self-defense or defense of another individual. And I agree with authors of this article to the extent where they discuss that people who refuse to apply physical pressure to a wrongdoer in order to save innocents must take responsibility for the consequences. Bagaric and Clarke may be right when they argue that with life-saving compassionate torture the pain exposed to the suspect is grossly outweighed by the benefit stemming from the innocent lives saved, but they would be wise to remember about the existence of the slippery slope argument. They claim that the floodgates are already open, however, nowadays it is used only in extreme situations. And the legalization of torture would allow people to use it where it is not necessary. Torture can be a useful information-gathering device, indeed. Under the torture the wrongdoer will say anything in order for the pain to stop. It reminded me of George Orwell’s 1984: “Of pain you could wish only one thing: that it should stop. Nothing in the world was so bad as physical pain. In the face of pain there are no heroes.” In a society where all nations permit individuals to inflict pain on others that is far greater than torture, it is acceptable to apply the life-saving torture when it is necessary.
Who wouldn’t have agreed? Yes, torture is cruel but it is less cruel than the substitute in many positions. Killing Hitler wouldn’t have revived his millions of victims nor would it have ended war. But torture in this predicament is planned to bring no one back but to keep faultless people from being sent off. Of course mass murdering is far more barbaric than torture. The most influential argument against using torture as a penalty or to get an acknowledgment is that such practices ignore the rights of the particulars. Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture” discusses both sides of being with and being against torture. This essay gets readers thinking a lot about the scenarios Levin mentioned that torture is justified. Though using pathos, he doesn’t achieve the argument as well as he should because of the absence of good judgment and reasoning. In addition to emotional appeal, the author tries to make you think twice about your take on
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.
With this chapter comes about a lot of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the word we use to describe something that bring the most amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain for everyone involved. It also takes the consequences into effect. I say
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.
Capital punishment and torture are often looked down on in today’s societies because they are viewed as cruel and unconstitutional, but perhaps they would help in more ways then we would like to admit. They can be beneficial in many ways such as encouragement to be truthful, encouragement to live by the laws, and as a source of punishment. Capital punishment and torture are thought to be too painful, and the person doing the punishment is also committing a crime.
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.
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 into thinking 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 articles academic standing and arguably renders the entire case futile. Levin’s strategy of playing with the fears of people is genius, but, with more creditable details of the issue the article would have sustained the scrutiny of more educated individuals. The addition of more concrete information, would have given people something to cling to, inherently improving the articles creditability.
Neuroscientist Sam Harris, author of the article "In Defense of Torture", blogged on October 18, 2005, his strong position about legitimate torture of the terrorists. Harris begins to emphasize his credibility with the use of tone and opinion, citing convincing facts and statistics, and successfully employing emotional appeals; however, toward the end of the article, the author fails to completely clarify his thinking. Although harris argues his position on the subject of torture, his article proposes mixed emotions towards the topic.
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.
In today’s society there are many issues surrounding the topic of torture. There are two sides to this argument. One side would be that torture should never be used, the other side would be that torture should be used if it is absolutely necessary. Many times when torture is used it is used to get information out of an individual. On many occasions people hear of torture being used on terrorists that have been captured. Torture is also used on Soldiers that have been captured during war. During times of war torture is often used by both sides to gain an advantage over the other side. The use of torture is a widely debated topic in today’s world.
Michael Levin’s The Case for Torture was a very strong and well-organized essay. Levin supports very good arguments about where torture can be validated in real life situations and can help save innocent lives. His use of emotional and logical appeals flow throughout his entire essay paired with the real life situations mentioned before. My goal is to analyze The Case for Torture and to highlight key points, positive and negative, in Michael Levin’s essay.
...the pleasure with minimal amount of pain would be to continue to use capital punishment. With the therapeutic aspect of closure for victims, it provides the necessary outcome for the victims to be able to move on from the situation.
Not only will the use of capital punishment help provide the families of victims with a feeling of security and reduce the ever-rising population in our prisons, but it will also act as a deterring factor. Again, my goal in arguing for the moral justifiability of capital punishment is to reduce the use of this practice to a minimum. This means that capital punishment will not become an everyday practice, but rather would be used in extreme situations where benefits such as deterrence, closure, and a population decrease can arise.
During the medieval era, torture had been considered a legitimate practice in obtaining a confession or to gain the name of any accomplice in the crime committed. The form of torture depended upon what the crime committed was and the social class of the accused individual. Be that as it may individuals were primarily toured for acts of treason. Torture was only allowed to be practiced through the Church. Because, only Monarchs and the Highest nobles were granted permission to inflict torture.
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.