Ethical Arguments For And Against Torture

“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.

This research paper talks about the controversy of torture in America. Torture is defined as a punishment of severe and intentional pain, either mentally or physically, inflicted on a person, particularly to receive information from him or her (“Defining Torture”). Starting around 530 A.D., the Romans started using torture as a tactic to get statements from people that they claimed they could not get any other way. For the same reason, the French and Italians adopted using torture around the twelfth-century; however, they began to inflict torture on people because their law system required that they must have a confession from the suspect or witnesses in order to punish the person (Green). America adopted similar practices such as the French and Italians did, but the United States government claims that torture has only been used as a way to keep America safe from

When a teenager is accused of stealing a necklace from a store, the initial reaction is to ask whether he or she has stolen the item. In response, the teen’s answer could vary, from hesitation to a simple yes or no to a drawn out excuse. This is a minor case of interrogation, where the suspected person is questioned for information. In a more extreme situation, the government uses this method, called torture, on people suspected of committing a crime. The only difference here is that the suspect is not necessarily interrogated about jewelry; instead, the person could be asked about vital information that is crucial to a current operation, concerning the lives of innocent people or soldiers fighting for a cause. Because torture usually involves physical and psychological pain, it should not be exercised.

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

While some individuals agree that torture is a necessity and an efficient tool to extract information from prisoners, I firmly believe that torture methods are not an effective or secure way to obtain information as mentioned by prisoners that have been tortured. For Example, Senator John McCain (a former U.S navy Pilot) points out in “Torture’s terrible Toll” that torturing threatens America’s moral standards and idealism. But, most importantly McCain believes that the information given by the prisoner is highly questionable, as torture forces an answer without any guarantee that the information provided is true.

Torture can be morally justifiable  when torturing a wrongdoer would prevent them from seriously hurting innocent people for the purpose of gathering information that my not necessarily be the truth.  Those arguing against the use of torture expressed the following concerns: that torture is sometimes endorsed as a punishment rather than as a means of extracting information (Carlsmith & Sood,2009), that the wrong people are tortured more often than the right people (Bellamy,2006), and that there are insufficient safeguards in the current system to prevent these misapplications from occurring. Few people agree that torturing innocent people who do not have any relevant information is morally right. This analysis assumes that there is a reasonable probability that the to-be-tortured person has information that, if acquired by the torturer, could potentially prevent some significant harm from coming to others.

Discussions concerning torture have always been controversial and upsetting. For the benefit of many, torture seems excusable and permissible when it is guaranteed to yield vital and necessary information. Even from an act utilitarian standpoint, torture is acceptable when its actions produce the highest happiness in numbers. But from a rule utilitarian perspective, torture violates universal truths and is not effective everywhere at all times, since it is not always guaranteed to produce the same result. This essay will argue against torture on the basis that it is unethical no matter what the situation is or who the suspect may be.

Claiming that “[i]t would be a gross dereliction of duty for any government not to keep Khalid Sheikh Mohammed isolated, disoriented, alone, despairing, . . . in order to find out what he knew about plans for future mass murder” (6). In concluding this thought, Krauthammer argues that the only time aggressive forms of interrogation techniques such as torture should be allowed are in the case of Mohammed and the al Qaeda, or in similar situations that include a terrorist who may hold vitally valuable information.

Torture, what is torture the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain. Torture has been used since the beginning of human civilization. Some early forms of torture being the Brazen Bull, Impalement, the Heretic Fork, etc… Point being torture has always been used to punish the enemies of your people. That being said torture now a days will not kill the person, like it did back then, but some of the people getting torture would rather be dead than be waterboard. In the following essay I will explain how the CIA has responded to torture and how other countries also use and get affected by torture.

To torture or not to torture, is a huge controversial subject in today’s society. We have seen how many are tortured throughout the world for information and ultimately result in an undeserved death. By torturing men, women, and even children is to help find pertinent information or help stop future attacks. Not everyone is going to see eye to eye on whether or not torture is the right thing to do to gain information. There are four theories we are to discuss utilitarianism, Kantian duty-based ethics, virtue ethics, and Christian-principle based ethics.

More recently, in 2009, a poll asked ‘‘Do you favor or oppose allowing the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) in extreme circumstances, to use enhanced interrogation techniques, even torture to obtain information from prisoners that might protect the United States from terrorist attacks?’’. Forty-three percent agree that torture can be justified, while forty-eight percent opposed the use of torture, regardless of the circumstances (Ramos 236). This is important to note because it shows that public opinion has changed radically in three years and people are starting to come to the idea that torture is both necessary and

With the issues going on in the Middle East today and the war on terrorism, the use of torture including murder, is a very widespread and controversial issue. Torture is viewed as morally wrong; therefore it is also legally wrong as well, not just on the home front but internationally as well (Is Torture Ever Justified). However, torture is sometimes not only right, but is needed for a greater good. With the case of torture you may not be able to see whether it is clearly wrong or right. This essay will address three situations where torture may be viewed as correct on a moral standpoint. It is clearly and completely wrong if torture is used on an innocent victim without a true greater good trying to be achieved. Saving innocent lives, taking down terrorists, and punishing them in institutions are cases where torture is should be sound. Even more so, torture in those cases should be welcomed as methods of punishment and further advancement in situations where intelligence needs to extracted for the saving of lives or the take down of terrorist activities. In no way should the use of torture be legalized for the use of the public, but in uses for the armed forces and law enforcement there should be rules and regulations that protect them if the use of torture is absolutely necessary.

This paper uses 6 articles, 3 scholarly and 3 non scholarly articles to discuss when is torture necessary despite conflicting with peoples’ moralities. This paper is to compare and contrast the two different types of articles and see how both can benefit a paper as long as the author can distinguish what information is useful and credible information. It will, also, discuss what makes some people see torture as a necessity as opposed to those who view torture as wrong. In addition, the paper will discuss what social factors and events make some individuals break their moral codes and feel that they have no choice but to violate basic human rights and see torture as the only means to an end.

Torture is one of the most controversial topics of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. The age of terrorism has forced the topic to be introduced to the Legislative Branch. Now that technology is present in every aspect of life the gruesome interrogations of terrorist organizations are privy to the average Joe. Many people believe that torture is both barbaric and uncivilized reserved for third world countries and fragile regimes. These individuals tend to agree that torture is any action or practice of inflicting sever pain on someone in the version of physical or mental abuse with the desire to degrade or humiliate. However, there are individuals who believe that torture is a necessary evil; even though most third world countries

Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (O’Byrne, 2003, pg. 400). This human rights violation is also discussed in Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (408). While torture is discussed in many covenants and declarations as morally and legally wrong, many still argue that torture can be justified in certain situations. There are many answers and theories that can be applied to the everlasting question, is torture wrong? All the theories discussed thus far in the course will be applied to this question. In my opinion, the act of torturing someone is a heinous act that violates many human rights, and for that reason it is wrong in all circumstances, but one. I cannot undeniably state that torture is wrong, because in my opinion one situation justifies torture. So the argument that will be presented throughout this paper is that torture can be justified in a very specific situation, but in all other situations torture is morally wrong. To say that the act of torture must be either right or wrong neglects the circumstances and situations in which torture may be seen as a necessity. While it may be rare for torture to be needed, its rare usefulness doesn’t undermine its value in certain situations. To clarify, the act of harming another human being is wrong, but in some cases the act of harming someone can save many others.