Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Is torture morally right
Is torture morally right
The ethics of torture
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Is torture morally right
Torture is the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something” (Merriam Webster). Torture is a very controversial topic in today's’ society. In some ways torture can be looked upon as evil and satanic. On the other hand, torture can be look upon as beneficial and favorable. In United States of America, torturing for your own self pleasure is inhumane and shunned by many Americans, but is torture effective? Depending on the situation it can be. Let us say a very sadistic person tells you that he has your best friend in one of two buildings and in sixty seconds both buildings will collapse. Would torturing this sadistic person be effective in helping obtain information on which building your loved one was in? Torture should only be used on the war on terror, life or death situation and important issues involving our country.
Firstly, Richard Posner wrote in the New Republic in 2002 that "if torture is the only means of obtaining the information necessary to prevent the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Times Square, torture should be used” (Ghosh, par. 4). Effectively, torture should only be used in emergency situations. Bobby Ghosh explains how, Ali Soufan, now an international-security consultant, thinks interrogation techniques that are used by the U.S. military during George W. Bush's’ regime are “Borderline torture and Un-American” (Ghosh, par.4). Torture has been discussed constantly throughout the years ever since 9/11. If the United States government knew about this plan before hand, they could obtain the information on where these tragic events would take place. They could obtain the information by torturing the culprits and by obtaining the information tho...
... middle of paper ...
...nfortunately, some may not break under torture.
In closing, torture is not a 100% effective interrogation strategy in trying to obtain information from suspects. Torturing can have an intense negative psychology appeal. “But it is worth considering whether the use of torture is truly motivated by a desire to gain valuable information, or by a desire to overcome a sense of powerlessness and to restore control, or even by a basic desire of revenge”(Costanzo). Negatively, torture is a very controversial topic and should not be taken lightly. In the future, interrogators should consider other interrogations technique and also include torture. Torture should be used as a last resort in trying to obtain information. Finally, torture can be justified in certain situation that such as the war on terror, life or death situations and important issues involving our country.
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.
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...
Ever since the attack on the world trade center, Americans have become more aware of their surroundings and possible scenarios that could take place anytime and anywhere. After 9/11 the U.S. military began more sophisticated interrogations on individuals that could possibly lead to terrorism outbreaks by using the most effective way which is torture to ensure that the safety and lives of Americans is not threatened. Through the use of torture by our military, the U.S. has been able to interfere the use of terrorism, obtain important information and save numbers of U.S. citizens lives.
Some believe that even in the most dire of situations, the act of torturing a prisoner to obtain information is not the most effective or efficient way to glean accurate information of a threat or terrorist group; experts have said that it is actually a very inefficient way to go about this and even that it is only on rare occasions that this results in useful, accurate information. However, there are also those who believe the exact opposite; that the only way to get information from a terrorist, or someone believed to be involved in terrorist activity, is to mentally break them down until they have suffered enough to surrender any information they might know or to the point where they just say whatever is necessary for the “interrogation” to stop, as in
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.
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
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.
Is it morally right or is it wrong to use torture to gain information during interrogation of suspected terrorists or detainees? It is a difficult ethical question that people in the United States are debating. Our government implemented its initial anti-terrorism measures shortly after 9/11 attacks occurred. The United States has found a way to justify the use of torture on suspected terrorists. Despite opposition of the Constitution, international treaties and Supreme Court rulings, justification for using it was hidden behind the curtain of utilitarianism. One of the landmark Supreme Court decisions was from Brown v. Mississippi and it states, “These measures outweighed many individual rights, including due-process rights and the
Though torture and enhanced interrogation are similar in that they both force information from captured individuals, they are basically different due to motives as well as extreme measures used. Enhanced interrogation is used by the United States for certain interrogation methods including “walling, facial hold, facial slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and water boarding” (Quigley 3). This method of interrogation is protected against international criminal prosecution. However, torture is known as the practice of inflicting “cruel, inhumane, degrading infliction of severe pain” (Beehner 1) and is “often used to punish, to obtain information or a confession, to take revenge on a person or persons or create terror and fear” (Quiroga 7). Like enhanced interrogation, torture can be used to retrieve information. However, the motive of using torture is not always to save lives. Although enhanced interrogation us...
Torture is defined as in law, infliction of severe bodily pain either as punishment, or to force a person to confess to a crime, or to give evidence in a judicial proceeding. In the middle of ancient people torture has been used as a means of suffering and to punish captured enemies. It involves using instruments to force evidence from unwilling witnesses.
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
Some people believe that it is one of the best tactics to get information when a criminal is not being compliant. They believe that it is a great tool to save others lives when necessary. The people that favor this are favoring torture when it is necessary not when it is not necessary. Some get confused that the criminals should be tortured regardless if it will save thousands or not. That would be unlawful because in America there is a system that will punish criminals by taking their time away and not physically punishing them. Sandel brings this up in the book. He says, “Recall that the person being tortured to save all those lives is a suspected terrorist, in fact the person we believe may have planted the bomb. The moral force of the case for torturing him depends heavily on the assumption that he is in some way responsible for creating the danger we now seek to avert. Or if he is not responsible for this bomb, we assume he has committed other terrible acts that make him deserving of harsh treatment” (Pg. 25 Sandel). Even if he is deserving of physical torture, the justice system in America prevents that from happening. Torturing is only justified when it is in the moment and the clock is ticking to save thousands of innocent
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.