Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Is torture morally correct
Torture as a moral wrong
The Case Of Torture
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Ethics of Torture: The Fight for Humanity Torture may be an inhumane way to get the information needed to keep the citizens of the United States safe from the attacks that are threatened against them, but there is rarely a course of action that will ensure the safety of a nation’s citizens that doesn’t compromise the safety of another group of people. Nevertheless, we must conserve as much humanity as possible by looking at the situation we are in and ensure that we are approaching the torture in an ethical manner. Although torture is valid on moral grounds, there are many who oppose it, such as Jamie Mayerfeld as he states in his 2009 article “In Defense of the Absolute Prohibition of Torture”. Mr. Mayerfeld writes first about the many …show more content…
In this case of the use of torture in the interrogation of terrorists by the United States, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that the sacrifice of one person 's well-being to obtain information that could be used to save more than one life would be justifiable, but what happens when you complicate this issue? For example, the use of torture can cause strain on foreign alliances as well as further instigate the organization that the person being tortured belongs to. This can lead to a stronger terrorist organization that is more unified. As a result of this effect, we can put more lives in harm’s way. The information could also allow the United States to locate the terrorist organization and eliminate its members while expecting our own casualties. The utilitarian approach would deem torture as ethical if the total amount of casualties, regardless if they are from the U.S, the terrorist organization, or uninvolved third parties, is less than would be without the torture. Unfortunately, there is often not enough information at the time of interrogation to determine if the utilitarian approach is ethically
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.
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.
First, the ticking-bomb scenarios are cases in which torturing the terrorist will save many innocent lives at the cost of non-lethal suffering to one individual. Torturing the terrorist would thus produce the most happiness/well-being. This approach has great strengths but also creates complex questions: is torture still the lesser evil if it only saves one person? Is it morally right to torture a person’s children to extract a confession? Is it morally right to torture ninety-nine people in an attempt to save one-hundred others? In theory this type of thinking can justify extreme inhumanity as long as it is calculated as the lesser evil. Secondly, one ought to do what produces the most happiness/well-being. Despite the wider case against torture, a person confronted with the immediate choices in the ‘ticking bomb’ case is unlikely to take these issues into account; ‘interrogators will still use coercion because in some cases they will deem it worth the consequence. Few people would be unable to see a moral basis for torture if it was carried out in a reasonably clear ‘ticking bomb’ case and if the intention of the torturer was to ‘do the right thing.’ The difficulties of the immediate choice between carrying out torture and allowing deaths make it difficult to morally condemn the unfortunate person charged with deciding. Therefore, one ought to torture terrorists in such scenarios. The only pragmatic concern would be that torture does not
Because of the 9/11 terrorist, the U.S. have been able to limit the outcomes they produce by using physical and mental torture against their emotional torture they used on the Citizens. Its not the U.S. that started this battle over the use of torture, america had to protect itself from further hurt. “The suffering caused by the terrorists is the real torture (Jean-Marie Le Pen).” people argue that torture it is an inhumane act to deliberately beat a victim physically and mentally. The problem is that there are no other possible solutions to obtain information that are as effective as torture on such events other than force it out of them by using torture as their primary weapon (The Legal Prohibition). If the U.S. wants to pursue the safety of americans they have to take actions, As long as there are no bombs going off around the world, the U.S. will continue to use torture . Terrorism has become a much greater threat than before. regardless if the beating are too extreme, it is still the duty of the state to protect its citizens (Torture Is Just Means). Even if the interoges are suffering from severe torture, the U.S. is able t...
Consider the following situation: You are an army officer who has just captured an enemy soldier who knows where a secret time bomb has been planted. Unless defused, the bomb will explode, killing thousands of people. Would it be morally permissible to torture them to get him to reveal the bomb’s location? Discuss this problem in light of both Utilitarian and Kantian moral theories and present arguments from both moral perspectives for why torture is morally wrong.
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...
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.
Author Brian Knappenberger created this article do to his hatred for torture throughout the United States. Brian Knappenberger is an award-winning documentary filmmaker he has won Writers Guild of America Award for Best Documentary Screenplay.Knappenberger has directed and executive produced numerous other documentaries for the Discovery Channel, Bloomberg, and PBS. He owns and operates Luminant Media, a Los Angeles based production and post-production company. All together Brian Knappenberger show his firm beliefs and is a very intelligent man. Knappenberger is trying to address towards the United States government and citizens to give intel on his own thoughts towards torture. It clearly states how he is against the use of torture and states
Hence, Beli and Oscar both experience physical torture in the cane fields. Elaine Scarry's "The Structure of Torture" describes how the act of torture effects an individual. Both Beli and Oscar experience varying effects of torture, which both reinforces and subtracts from the claims made Scarry's excerpt. To put it briefly, Beli and Oscar's deaths are in one way or another caused by torture; and in a broader sense; caused by love. As Marcel Proust once said: "love is a reciprocal
"Terrorism and Civil Liberty: Is Torture Ever Justified? | The Economist." The Economist - World
There has been an ongoing debate regarding torture and ethical reasoning to determine when or if its ever ok. Modern scholars such as Alan Dershowitz, Sam Harris, and Charles & Gregory Fried, have expressed different ideas on ethical torture. Ideas of ethical reasoning were established by John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant. Even though they did not specifically use torture as an example of ethical reasoning for decision making their rational can still be applied to this topic.
Torture is a controversial topic in today’s society. What is torture? Torture can be defined as, ‘the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.’(Dershowitz, A) According to international law, it is illegal to use torture in any situation of any kind. Though torture undoubtedly continues throughout the world, the moral argument prohibiting torture should or could be justified. However, the question of torture has resurfaced in the context of the “Is There A Torturous Road to Justice” mainly focusing on the attacks of 911. Seemingly, the topic of torture became more demanding after millions of lives lose and threaten after the attacks on the United States. The dilemma of torture is commonly expressed towards problem of the ‘ticking bomb terrorist.’
Ever since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, torture has been a controversial issue. This information-gathering technique has been the major topic of every wartime discussion. In the case of a terrorist attack such as that of 9/11, shouldn’t torture be justified as a way to save countless lives? Torture proponents always use the scenario in which thousands, if not millions, of lives are pitted against the well-being of one likely terrorist and his torture. Torture opponents argue that torture is a clear violation of human rights, morals, and ethics. Even though torture is morally and ethically inexcusable and generally frowned upon, it cannot be considered a black-and-white issue. Looking at the big picture, however, due to the traumatizing nature of torture, it must be considered that torture is morally and ethically in the wrong, but torture should be justified in the few, extremely rare situations where no other methods for extracting information are available.
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.
Public administration is concern about the implementation of policy and to meet the government goals. Politics, performance and accountability are fundamental aspects among public administration. Politics refers to the political values that shape the administrative action. Performance considers the effectiveness and efficiency of the public administrator’s process. Meanwhile, accountability is the expectation of account-giving by the actions of the public servants, this depends of the political control over the administrator’s actions (Kettl, 2015). The American public administration is based on ten fundamental principles, which are focuses on effectiveness and accountability of the public servants. These principles are: i) implement the laws