Ethics: The Case Of Torture Analysis

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

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.

Automatically you will have the majority of the population against this idea. However when you add the intent behind the torture, which, in this case is to prevent acts of terrorism. The term “terrorism” is added to the equation, this term has an equally horrific image associated with it. This will have some people re-thinking their assumptions of torture under these specific circumstances.

Torture is a conversation that is spoken on the moral ethics of it. One side that it disregards human life and others say that it is necessary in acts of terrorism or war. I have the same feelings I do for the death sentence and general imprisonment. Deep investigation and complete objectiveness. Although, there usually isn’t a need for investigation for acts of terrorism, but due to the high amount of prejudice in our current time I would suggest to investigate it anyway just in case.

The essay, “The Case of Torture” by Michael Levin, discusses when the use of torture on a terrorist is necessary. Levin provides scenarios of life changing events. In which he thinks torture would be the best method to save the lives of many. He attempts to convince the reader that torture is “morally mandatory” in our society.

Torture is not and should not be justified for national security because it is unfair , a violation of several human rights and just simply unhame .

In discussions of torture, one controversial issue has been if it is right to use torture to interrogate suspect terrorist (s) if they have information that can save civilian and military lives. On one hand, some argue that torture is never justified no matter what the situation is. On the other hand, some even contend that torture is a violation of our human rights. Others even maintain that it is ineffective and only causes more conflict. Some even think that it should be used as punishment to serious criminals such as murderers or rapist. My own view is, however, torture should never be used no matter what circumstance there may be even if there is a ticking time bomb. Torture used as a punishment to criminals is barbaric and should never be done. Torture is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and violates the 8th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America; also, torture is not effective because captives will often break, and give the interrogators phony information just to stop the pain.

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.

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

Torture is condemned by worldwide consensus through documents such as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Mappes, Zembaty & DeGrazia, 2012, p. 345). Torture involves detaining someone suspected of planning violent acts or who may know of such plans, thereby violating the individual’s right to liberty (p. 384). It is also defined by extreme interrogation techniques that cause mental or physical pain, such as simulated drowning or Alan Dershowitz’s example of poking sterile needles under fingernails to get information (p. 345). Generally speaking, ethical theories would condemn torture.

The act of torture is meant to humiliate and harm a life until the person instilling the pain gets what they want out of the person. This act violates the laws of humanity, and is nothing more than cruel and unusual punishment. Studies show that torture can cause actual damage to the memory of the person it is done to. (Cooper) This discovery makes it clear that torture not only causes physical and mental damage, but also the information taken from it has likely been altered. Torture benefits neither the victim, nor the instigator, because, unless he is some sort of sociopath, no one enjoys inflicting pain on other human beings. The tactic of torture is also very immoral, because it goes against the basic principle that you should not do wrong onto others. One could also incorporate the wise proverb that, “you can not fight fire with fire,” because it is basically saying there is no need for retaliation, even if others have done wrong. An example of this would be to not lash back at those who cause you harm. This basic concept of actions causing consequences can be taken to a much larger scale, and can also be intertwined back into the topic of torture. Take for example how Al Qaeda had been causing harm and then how the United States of America stepped in and began interrogating these people using different forms of torture in hopes of stopping them. Although it did help somewhat, it has

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

In regards to a bill that was introduced to Congress forbidding the use of tactics defined by torture; The United States government must consider all of the ethical options and possibilities they have. It is known across the world that torture is morally unethical. It is also known that allowing innocent civilians to be murdered is against every moral we, as humans possess. As morally just people we have to find the exceptions in which we are willing to use torture in countering terrorism. As leaders of the free world our government has the responsibility to do everything in their power to protect the innocents of the world and gain the needed information to do so. Winning this war on terror will occasionally come at a high cost, leaving no choice other

Kate, a shy girl, goes to school in California. She goes to a big school with class sizes around 500 students which makes it easy for her not to be noticed. She likes it that way though. As a young child, she was always the outcast. Moving from school to school has always made it hard for Kate to make friends. Sad and scared, imagine what happens when she moves to her new school in California her sophomore year and will be staying until graduation. Kate never reached out to anyone because she knew she would be leaving the following year and never see them again. It was close to the end of her junior year when people started to notice Kate, and how she dressed different. The kids at the school would laugh and make fun of her when they saw her

Kantian moral theories make a very strong argument for why torture is wrong just in its definition. If we are using someone in a way which they have not directly consented to this means we are using them as a mere means which is exactly what Kant proposes we avoid (O’Neil, 1986, p.45). Torcher, by definition, cannot be consented to. If it could be, it wouldn’t be called torture. That person would have asked for it and they would have a reason to gain something out of the situation. “The Formula of the End in Itself applies to the intentions on which one acts-not to some prettified version that one may avow”