Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Torture as a moral wrong
The case for torture
Advantages of torture
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Torture as a moral wrong
Torture is something that is known as wrong internationally. Torture is “deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting on the orders of authority, to force a person to yield information, to confess, or any other reason” (World Medical Association, 1975, pg.1). There is a general consensus that there is a right to be free from any kind of torture as it can be found in many different human rights treaties around the world. The treaties show that all of the thoughts about torture are pointing away from the right to torture someone no matter what the case is. In American society we do have a high morality on life and how we should be treated. Torture is something that may not be written …show more content…
“International norms in this array of treaties and customary international law impose ranges of obligations on states. For instance, states must not only refrain from using torture, they must also take strong positive measures to prevent and punish torture” (McKay, 2005, pg.1037). If we have the right to be free from torture in here in America we believe that we as Americans shall not be tortured by anyone else in any other country even if it is in a time of war. We believe that people that are in the custody of the American’s shall have the same basic rights that we give our citizens. This means that someone that is a person of high interest or value they shall not be tortured for the simple fact that they may have information that is being looked for. For the longest time torture is something that all nations view as wrong no matter what is going on. Most nations also want what is right for most people and most nations do now want people to be tortured. This means that all nations need to come together and figure out how they feel about torture and work together to make sure that this form of punishment is not being carried out. Everyone has to be onboard for torture to stop
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.
Interrogational torture is one of the many tough ethical questions that people debate about in the United States. Is it right or is it wrong? Many believe that the United States does not practice intense interrogational acts such as torture. Many people have fought to abolish any form of torture while many fight to keep some forms of it to help keep the peace. Whether you believe in it or not, torture is and will always be an ethical dilemma that comes up.
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...
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.
From a moral standpoint, torture is wrong and unacceptable. Many religious people are against this act of violence because they see it as a violation of the dignity of a human being. Humans have the right to not have intentional harm upon themselves from others. The ban on torture furthermore supports this certain right. Not only does torture violate people’s rights, but they also violate the demands of justice. In the past, many of our nation’s people have been tortured and we have had a problem with it; but when it’s not you the one that is being tortured, it seems to be fine. Have you heard of the golden rule, “Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation? (7)” This applies very well to this problem.
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.
In the opinion of this author, his argument is fair and includes the following strengths: that although torture is prohibited by a number of world declarations, it is so fundamental to international order that it does not need to be embodied in written credos; that simply masking “torture” as other words, does not render it legally justifiable and that by claiming necessity of the lesser of two evils, that torture does not necessarily lead to a betterment in the world; rather a deterioration. Possible pitfalls of his argument include a ignorance of the realist point of view by understanding the political and social needs of the nation at the time the memo was drafted as well as ...
Torture is the act of inflicting severe pain or suffering, mental or physical, on an individual to obtain information, to intimidate or for punishment. Torture is expressed in many ways, for example, rape, hard labour, electric shock, severe beatings, etc, and for this reason it is considered as cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. Therefore, it is a violation of human rights and is strictly prohibited by international law. Michael Davis and many other individuals have stated that torture is worse than murder. He claims, “Both torture and premature death are very great evils but, if one is a greater evil than the other, it is certainly torture”. With that being said, there are three major reasons to discuss, in which, torture is not morally acceptable. However, in many cases it is considered very beneficial, but the disadvantages outweighs the benefits. Firstly, bullying is a form of torture but to a lesser extent, in which it results in an individual suffering from low self-esteem, suicidal thoughts, self-harm, etc. In addition, torture is mainly used as a means to obtain information, however, it is an ineffective interrogation tool in which, the data given could be falsified. Lastly, torture is sometimes utilized to shatter the autonomy of individual, that is, the right to their freedom and independence, forcing the victim to succumb to the torturer’s way of thinking.
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
The ongoing debate between torture and enhanced interrogation techniques is, has been and always will be a hot controversial topic. Whether between different political views, cultures, world leaders or the citizens and society in general, the issue will always be of great importance. Some believe the two are the same, while others feel they differ. Either way, the methods and effectiveness are the major points for concern.
Torture to most people is a cruel and unusual regimen. It's also considered as evil. Intolerable, and unconstitutional. Most of us has experienced the horrific Hollywood films and real life events involving torture. Michael Levin, a well known professor of philosophy at Columbia University, advocated for the usage of torture as a preferred method of preventing evil and he explains why in his article “The Case for Torture.”
A Monstrous Evil It is time to stop living with a monstrous evil. The United States must forbid torture in order to strengthen its integrity, its virtues as a nation, and its dedication to the rights of individuals. This cannot be conditional lest it allow minor exceptions turn to sweeping exceptions in the future. Our desire to avoid any unnecessary harm of others, the virtues we uphold as a nation, and the rights of the individual make it completely clear that torture cannot remain in any capacity.
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 have all failed to end torture despite accepting the provisions of the Convention.
Meaning torture is not legal and has no justification to be used at any times, regardless of who is in charge. Even though the use of torture is illegal and should not be used, as all individuals should be treated evenly, regardless of what they may have done it is argued that those who have committed terrible crimes, should pay for what they have done, as they do not deserve the same rights. Another way torture could be described in a neutral way is enhanced interrogation techniques which is what was used in Guantanamo Bay. It was found “that the interrogation techniques utilised by the United States went far beyond those sanctioned by domestic and international law.” (International Bar Association,