Moral Justifications for Torture

1952 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Why torture is justified

Torture can be defined as the “intentional infliction of physical and mental suffering aimed at forcing someone who is defenceless at the purpose of breaking their will” (Rodley, 2000). It is important to note, that if a person has been tortured, even if their mental will has not been broken, the process and the purpose of torture is to break the victims will. Thus, the purpose does not have to be realised for the process to be considered an instance of torture. With that being said, under international law, torture is illegal in any form or situation whatsoever. Although it continues throughout the world, issues such as the “War on Terror” with the possibility of WMDs has resulted in an influx of questions regarding torture and its moral justifications in some extreme emergencies. The dilemma of “ticking bomb terrorist” is a perfect example of this. (See Case Study 1 below)
Within this paper I will argue that torture can be morally justified in some extreme emergencies. However, I will also analyse the reasons and arguments for the support of the prohibition of torture and the implications of this. However, notwithstanding my argument on the validity of the use of torture in certain circumstances, torture ought not be institutionalised or legalised in any way whatsoever. I will justify my argument through two case studies as well as the “ticking bomb” scenario by discussing the mitigating factors it possess and why torture is crucial in the potential to obtain life altering information.
I have suggested that the defining purpose of the process of torture is to break a person’s will, with that being said, different kinds of torture have different purposes; terrorising a political group, gratification through desire on part of th...

... middle of paper ...

...aw on this one occasion. However, the consequences and repercussions of what happens to military officers and police officers after a torture scenario could be controversial to say the least. Naturally, the person in question would be tried, convicted and if found guilty, sentenced on the crime of torture. However, due to the circumstances and the justification of the act, it is of my opinion that the sentence should be substantially reduced and he or she dismissed from their positions; public institutions cannot be allowed to deteriorate within its ranks by those who commit the crimes they are defending the public against. However, with the knowledge of thousands of innocent lives to be saved, with the repercussions being the loss of their job and minor punishment, would many people justify their actions through a greater moral justification? I believe they would.

Show More
Related

  • The Genocidal Killer in the Mirror” by Crispin Sartwell and Erich Fromm’s Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem

    1278 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the pursuit of safety, acceptance, and the public good, many atrocities have been committed in places such as Abu Ghraib and My Lai, where simple, generally harmless people became the wiling torturers and murderers of innocent people. Many claim to have just been following orders, which illustrates a disturbing trend in both the modern military and modern societies as a whole; when forced into an obedient mindset, many normal and everyday people can become tools of destruction and sorrow, uncaringly inflicting pain and death upon the innocent.

    Read More

  • Michael Levin's Essay: The Case For Torture

    948 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • The Torture Myth, by Anne Applebaum

    897 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Advanced Interrogation Techniques the United States

    1302 Words  | 3 Pages

    The reason that all governments torture prisoners is the same. “Torture is a machine designed to break the will to resist” (Klein) or to punish those who have disobeyed. There are two main reasons a government would want to break a person’s will. One reason why a government would want to break a person’s will is to remove that person’s motivation towards doing or saying things that the government does not want them to do or say. This reason, is the main purpose behind the persecution of Winston in Nineteen Eighty Four. The secon...

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Alan Dershowitz 'Should The Ticking Bomb Terrorist Be Tortured'

    1238 Words  | 3 Pages

    Alan Dershowitz challenges the legitimization of non-lethal torture in his essay, “Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist be tortured?” He claims that torture should indeed be legitimized for specific scenarios that require such action. The ticking bomb terrorist gives the example of a terrorist withholding time-sensitive information that could result in the death of innocent citizens, if not shared. Not only does Dershowitz challenge the idea of torture, but he also gives a probable solution that favors the legitimization the torture. He mentions three values that would have to be complied with by all three branches of government if it were to be legitimated, which Dershowitz does endorse. The arguments of the two perspectives discussed in the

    Read More

  • Capital Punishment and Torture: Unconstitutional Or Justice?

    518 Words  | 2 Pages

    Many people agree with capital punishment and torturing. Capital punishment can be used as a threat, if broken, it will be a promise. Also knowing that there is the possibility of a death sentence gives people the incentive not to commit a crime.Torture is also a very helpful method of punishment. This works in many countries s...

    Read More

  • At The Mind’s Limits

    1583 Words  | 4 Pages

    “If one speaks about torture, one must take care not to exaggerate,” Jean Améry view of torture comes from a place of uneasiness (22). He discusses in his book At The Mind’s Limits, about the torture that he underwent while a prisoner in Auschwitz. In his chapter titled “Torture”, he goes into deep description of not only the torture he endured, but also how that torture never leaves a person. Améry goes to great lengths to make sure that the torture he speaks of is accurate and as he says on page 22, not exaggerated.

    Read More

  • Pouring Salt on the Wound

    1326 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Why Torture is Morally Wrong

    2139 Words  | 5 Pages

    Now, let’s say you do choose to torture this man, not only are the people directly in this situation going to be affected, but also the rest of the nation. We need to ask ourselves, what is going to be the true outcome? This includes thinking about how the enemy is going to react and how the nation is going to react. Torturing this man shames our nation as a whole, scars our repu...

    Read More

  • Is Torture Ever Acceptable?

    867 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Morally Praiseworthy Actions of Medical Professionals who Provide Care for Enemy Combatants

    1298 Words  | 3 Pages

    Many Americans assume that medical professionals are generally helpful of others. However, a controversial question has been raised about the use of medical professionals and their involvement with torturing enemy combatants during war. Is it morally right or morally wrong for them to be involved in these sorts of practices? I believe that medical professionals who are involved in overseeing and treating tortured enemy combatants are morally praiseworthy. Medical professionals are praiseworthy because its undoubtedly correct for a medical professional to help preserve the life of tortured. Furthermore, medical professionals are praiseworthy because their job description demands that they assist injured people. Lastly, I emphasize that medical professionals are correct by performing these practices because it makes the doctors patriotic. I also will address a few opposing viewpoints within my points expressed and relate back to how my points outweigh the opposition.

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay: Is Torture Justified?

    725 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Ethical Ethics Of Torture

    1250 Words  | 3 Pages

    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”.

    Read More

  • Case Study Of Kant's Deontology

    1113 Words  | 3 Pages

    As we analyze this scenario through the eyes of Kantian Deontology, it is imperative that we recognize that, for our purposes, the lives of the civilians in question are irrelevant. This is because, as stated earlier, the consequences of one’s actions are meaningless; it is only the intent and will that truly matter in deciding an actions morality. We are only concerned with discerning the moral nature of torture itself. By removing the possibility of a terrible outcome, Kant leads us to a clear verdict on torture. In response to the first question that Kantian’s must ask themselves, it appears that torture fails. Torture is certainly not a maxim that many would want to will into the natural law. The second formulation of the categorical imperative, the basis of the second question that Kantian’s need to consider, is where torturing for information is declared absolutely impermissible. By torturing someone for information, specifically the location of several bombs, we are disregarding their rational autonomy by using them merely as a means only (Reitan). There is one scenario where the torture of the criminal could be considered morally acceptable. This is supported by Kant’s stance on capital punishment. Some may find this surprising, but Immanuel Kant was a

    Read More

  • The Convention Against Torture

    1107 Words  | 3 Pages

    In conclusion, the convention against torture, has brought many people together, and has informed many people of the horrible tortures which go on everywhere from the US to Syria. It has tried to set fine lines which prohibit torture under all circumstances. However, since there is no governing body over countries, it remains difficult to enforce the human right standards sought after by the Convention against torture. The convention has therefore done a good job at identifying the torturers. This has in turn lessened the amount of those persecuted. It will remain a gradual process to eliminate torture from all countries, but nevertheless a necessity, in the quest for universal human rights. Torture will continue until all countries decide for themselves, and not from a third party convention that freedom from torture is a human right everyone deserves.

    Read More

More about Moral Justifications for Torture

Open Document