Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Torture—Is it Ever Ethical
Morality of torture
Morality of torture
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
“As I struggle to gain my breath after my head is lifted back out of the tub filled to the brim with water, I gasp for air before I am dunked back inside the tub until I will pass out from the lack of oxygen travelling to my brain. Should I continue to hang on to this valuable piece of information keeping my country safe or give it up and let all the innocent children be at risk in our nation?” In this story, it shows a scene from a young soldier being tortured over the information he is keeping in order to keep his nation safe. Is this torture moral for the other country or could it be proven otherwise?
“You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind.” This quote from Mahatma Gandhi talks about how torture can beat and bruise someone, but does it get results? Torture’s ethics are not always the clearest subject: there are many different sides to the argument but for this paper there will only be two discussed. The first viewpoint is that of someone who is for the use of torture, they believe that torture is moral because it provides results in times of war or when the nation is being attacked. Those for it believe that torturing another human being is the only quick way to get results in order to save lives. Then there are those people who are against the thought of torturing another person. Their reason for this belief is that when someone is tortured they may be willing to admit guilt or tell the torturer information that is not relevant because they want the torturing to stop. These people also believe that it is immoral to treat people like this. According to Dictionary.com, torture has multiple definitions these are the following: “The act of inflicting excruciating...
... middle of paper ...
... Were their actions too severe or this innocent man? As one can see there is no right or wrong answer as to whether torture is moral or not, that is why it is such a controversial issue. There is no such thing as a right answer to this question, because the morality of the issue is your own opinion. Do we view it as moral if there is going to be a bombing that might take place on our soil? Is there a fine line on torture that makes some of it moral for different situations? These questions are not for me to answer, but for you to look inside yourself and think as to whether or not these acts that are being done to people fit into the moral beliefs that you have. I have not told anyone what to believe in, I just put the facts out there and shared my own opinion, now it is time for everyone to put on their big boy or big girl pants and decide on what they believe in.
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
...s invaluable. The efficacy of torture can be seen in the capture of Zubaydah and the prevention of the “Dirty bomber,” Jose Padilla. Effectiveness has also been proven; it has hypothetically saved many lives and has prevented many plots known to the general public. Ex-Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech in 2009 that the “enhanced interrogation” of detainees “prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people” (“The Report of The Constitution Project's Task Force on Detainee Treatment”, 1). Since it has been deemed illegal by the UN it has to be done in secrecy. In result, it cannot be deduced how much has been prevented by this procedure since that information is classified. However, it is irrefutable that torture, in its essence, is beneficial and should be accepted as a means of ensuring public safety.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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
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.
Tortured prisoners give false information. One writer writes “Many survivors of torture report that they would have said anything to make the torture stop.” (Mayer, 2005; McCoy, 2006) Another says that “We had people who were willing to confess to anything if we would just stop” (Andersen). The NY times reports that in 2002, A Syrian born Canadian named Maher Arar was stopped in an airport and was interrogated. He was later sent to a prison where he was beaten, tortured and questioned for the next 10 months of his life. To stop the punishment, he “admitted” to getting training in Afghanistan! A country he had never even been to. It was later discovered that everything that he confessed to was false, and was just a lie to stop the torture. Not only did you destroy someone’s life, but you also wasted taxpayer’s money! Imagine the amount of money wasted on getting planes to that area of Afghanistan where that guy was “trained” at. Or the amount of money that was used to fund this prison! Confessions made during torture are unreliable and are usually just statements to stop the torture.
America prides itself in treated all individuals humanely and fairly, and even one person under force suffering is against what America stands for. America should never justify torture based on our beliefs we were built on. Bruce Anderson says, “A man can retain his human dignity in front of a firing squad or on the scaffold: not in a torture chamber. Torturers set out to break their victim: to take human being and reduce him to a whimpering wreck” (Anderson 1). America does not believe in breaking someone down, but rather build them up. When an American messes up, in jail we continue to build them up. We help them get a college degree, try to work some of their unwanted qualities out, and give them the opportunities to better themselves. America is supposed to be the leader and teach the world that torture is not the answer. That is why nearly a quarter of American people believe torture should never be used of justified (ProQuest 2). Americans still hold the core values that this beautiful country was built
TThe Virginia Beach target market is divided into two categories, final consumers and organizational consumers. Within these categories are a subset of defined market segments that include leisure travelers (families, singles without children, sports enthusiasts, the mature market) and meeting and event planners (social, military, educational, religious, etc.). Within this case are various segmentation variables used to classify potential tourists who vacation at Virginia Beach. Geographically, Virginia Beach concentrates its direct marketing efforts on prospective tourists in the Northeast region of the United States. It is important to target this region because the city’s convenient location makes it only a day’s drive for two-thirds of
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,