Analysis: The Ethics Of Torture

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

Torture has been a sensitive subject in our government and among the people of the US. The article “Torture is Wrong-But it Might Work” Bloche about how even though torture is not moral to some, it can still provide effective results because of advanced techniques and psychological studies. He goes on to say that many believe it is effective but others will say it does not provide adequate results in interrogation efforts. Senators such as John McCain (R-Ariz.) believe it does not help at all; however, other government officials, such as former attorney general Michael Mukasey and former vice president Dick Cheney, believe it does (Bloche 115).

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.

In communities where the use of torture is a controversial, most people would agree that it is wrong and it should not be applied. According to an article “Torture in the Public Mind,” written by Mivaslov, Ninic and Jennifer, Ramos, they state: “70 percent of who participated in a study said that torture is wrong” (Ninic and Ramos 242). To put this in other words Ninic and Ramos state that people have negative views of torture, and think

“A Case For Torture” is an essay written by Michael Levin in which he tries to make a compelling case for the use of torture as a punishment during specific situations in the United States. Levin cites different hypothetical situations in order to logically prove his argument. His use of theoretical instances is meant to help direct the reader to an understanding of the applications of his policy on torture. The examples he uses include a hypothetical terrorist attack on Manhattan and hospital robbery. But unfortunately, the examples Levin cites lack strength due to their inapplicability to the current world. Equally important, in today’s terrorist centered climate, there is no room for Levin’s position on torture. Michael Levin in “A Case For Torture” is not logically convincing in his discussion as to why torture is a valid form of punishment, because his assertions rely too heavily on the speculative, and are not contemporary enough for use in modern times.

The definition of torture is perceived differently to every person. In this dispute, the two opposing sides are generally immovable. Many claim that it is not an effective tool, it is downright wrong, and it just does not work, while the other side claims the opposite. The argument “The Gray Zone: Defining Torture” by Barry Gewen examines the controversial issues that erupt from the touchy topic of torture. Gewen writes a successful and persuasive argument for his favorable position towards torture as an effective mean for gathering information and halting life-threatening situations which he does through his use of strong premises, logos, and ethos, building him a credible and structurally sound argument.

The most ethical resolution for torture in interrogations is to allow it to only happen during certain times. Psychologists should develop a method where minimal risks of long term problems occur. I believe this is the most ethical way, because to protect national security we need information about terrorist attacks quickly. Additionally, America needs to be able to trust the source of the information. I also believe that the CIA should also perform back ground checks on the people being questioned to prevent the risk of hurting innocents. I believe that this will be justified, because we should protect the majority while taking the fewest causalities. We will need to obtain the information so there would be no further attacks and we could

Coercive interrogation does not work in producing timely, reliable, and life saving information. Thus far, much of the discussion in this area has been concerned with the procedural, legal, and philosophical issues raised by torture. Only very limited attention has been given to the issue of effectiveness. Even if one concludes that torture can sometimes be riddled with moral objections, the argument for coercive techniques depends on the assumption that torture is an effective means of obtaining information. This is a dubious assumption. Scientific investigations of torture as an effective tool of interrogation have found no evidence that it is effective. That conclusion comes from a 2006 report on torture by the Intelligence Science Board. If torture is not an effective means to deduce information from a suspect, it is difficult to justify torture, as many experts in the field agree, even if you assert that it is necessary in certain circumstances. In addition, even if torture may work, if there are other ways to elicit information, the use of torture is not necessary. Lastly, it is super counter intuitive and has the potential to lead to radicalization.

If pain is meant to break the will of the person, one must ask when we might have an interest in doing so. Certainly violating the freedom through violence is not acceptable for citizens; I may not justifiably torture you to obtain what I want from you, be it your property, your behavior, or your ideological consent (Lendman, 2008). Also, the police may not torture to obtain information, as

Many opinions have been historically perceived on modern debates about the moral principles of torture. Torture has been carried out or sanctioned by individuals, groups, and states throughout history from ancient times to modern day, and forms of torture can vary greatly in duration from only a few minutes to several days or longer. (Torture, 2016). Torture is the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. (Torture, 2016). Now that we have an idea behind the meaning of torture, we need to know if it is ethical. Ethical can be described as fair, legitimate or moral. All and all, is torture the right thing to do? Let’s take a look at some of the reviews of those that are skilled professionals in discussing if it is just or permissible to use torture.

The question of torture has certainly been a major topic, especially, since the horrendous attacks that America sustained on 911 and I can certainly understand the passion that people have about this debate. Fighting such an evil enemy, as Islamic terrorism, has had a huge impact on the way in which we as a society approach the ethics surrounding this subject. In my view, this discussion very much involves the principles and ones motives behind the tactics that maybe used to justify torture.

After the horrific terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States made drastic changes to its policy on terrorist. The president at the time, George W Bush declared war on terrorism, specially targeting the terrorist group, Al Qaeda, who claimed responsibility for the September 11 attacks. The new policy on how to deal with terrorist allowed for the use of torture or in other words, doing whatever necessary to get answers. Since then, many controversies have risen about this topic, the main discussion is whether the use of torture on terrorist is morally acceptable or not. In this essay I will explain my reasoning’s for why I believe the use of torture is ethically immortal while using ethical thermos to explain my view point on

Research and case studies have concluded that once torture is approved, it is very difficult to monitor and contain. Torture has proven to not produce reliable information but it may persist in society as it provides a psychological need in times of great stress such as war. Specifically, it may reinforce the idea that the interrogator is in “control” of the situation and may be a possible way to “get back” at the enemy force. Although supporters argue that specific torture techniques extract vital information; it has been proven to actually increase the difficulty of extracting information. It is unknown to the full extent of how damaging mentally being tortured and the full toll it can take on a person’s

In the United States legal system, torture is currently defined as “an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.” as defined by Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (US Code, 1) Though this is a seemingly black and white definition, the conditional “…other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions…” have led many to question what precisely this entails. In other words, what are the lawful sanctions that permit such acts? Are they ethically right? Where is the line drawn as torture

By definition, torture is the act of inflicting serious psychological or physical pain on an individual with an aim of affecting the individual or group, punishing the person for deeds committed, or to acquire information from the person. Torture is usually carried out with the full permission of an individual who works for a public body or a civil servant. In other words, torture can be defined as a severe and systematic violation of the integrity of an individual with extreme social and psychological consequences. Essentially, it is assumed that torture is completely impermissible and is further considered as an ancient practice which outlived its usefulness long time a ago. Societies that consider themselves