Morally Wrong To Torture Essay

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

Henry Shue admits that this specific set of factors is very rare, and that torture should still be illegal. If the perfect situation presents it self, he argues, that there is a moral justification, if not a duty, to torture in order to prevent the loss of innocent life. Now, Shue qualifies what torture is by saying “the torture is purely interrogational,” meaning that no serious harm will come of the person being tortured. In essence, the immorality of torture is not absolute—it is conditional. In addition, by saying that torture is ethical when x y and z happen, means that the consequences of torture are being used to judge torture’s morality. However, this is problematic because it goes against

Another sad fact is that no one decides if the process is ethical or not it just happens (Einolf 102). Back in the Roman times, they were not allowed to participate in the act of torture (Einolf 107). Torture began being used quite frequently in the Chin century. Many people were still not sure what the difference was between punishment and torture. It was mainly believed that cruel punishment was pretty much teacher no matter what anyone said (Einolf 108). Even as recent as in 2004, many people thought it was unethical and inhumane to punish people (Einolf 101).

There are different laws over all countries that control by every government in the world. For those who is a criminal or a prisoner, their country’s government has different laws of punishment to punish them. Torture is one of them. The function of torture is to force someone to say something and as a punishment. Torture is unacceptable which I disagree on which it is an action of inhumanly.

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).

Every single person in America today grew up with the belief that torture is morally wrong. Popular culture, religious point of views, and every other form of culture for many decades has taught that it is a wrongdoing. But is torture really a wrong act to do? To examine the act of torture as either a means or an end we must inquire about whether torture is a means towards justice and therefore morally permissible to practice torture on certain occasions. “Three issues dominate the debates over the morality of torture: (1) Does torture work? (2) Is torture ever morally acceptable? And (3) What should be the state’s policy regarding the use of torture?” (Vaughn, 605). Torture “is the intentional inflicting of severe pain or suffering on people to punish or intimidate them or to extract information from them” (Vaughn, 604). The thought of torture can be a means of promoting justice by using both the Utilitarian view and the Aristotelian view. Using John Stuart Mills concept of utilitarianism, he focuses on the greatest happiness principle which helps us understand his perspective on torture and whether he believes it is acceptable to do so, and Aristotle uses the method of virtue of ethics to helps us better understand if he is for torture. The term torture shall be determined by exploring both philosophers’ definition of justice, what comprises a “just” act, what is considered “unjust”, and then determined if it would be accepted by, or condemned by either of these two

According to Joycelyn M. Pollock, torture is defined as the deliberate infliction of violence and, through violence, severe mental and/or physical suffering upon individuals. Torture, according to Christopher Tindale as quoted in Torture and the Ticking bomb by Bob Brecher,

Torture is not a new ethical dilemma, because torture has been practiced throughout human history and in different cultures. Now, however, the Geneva Convention and other modern norms suggest that human beings should not resort to using torture. Torture is becoming taboo as a method of intelligence gathering, which is why the methods used during the Iraq war were decried. However, the ethical case can be made for torture. If torturing one human being leads to information that could save the lives of a thousand, torture suddenly seems like a sensible method. This is a utilitarian perspective on torture, which many people find palatable. However, there are problems with this method of thinking about torture. The state-sanctioned use of torture creates a normative framework in which torture becomes acceptable. Torture sends the wrong message about what a free, open, and enlightened society should be. Even if torture is only acceptable in extreme circumstances, as with a suspect who might know something about an impending terrorist attack, who decides when and what type of torture should be used? There is too much potential for abuse of the moral loophole with regards to torture. If the United States hopes to be a role model, then torture cannot fit into its intelligence methods.

Throughout modern history, morals is questioned when torture is involved. Torture should be a black and white, yes or no question. It is acceptable to do an immoral act, as long as the act itself is legal, to create a good outcome. In the case of Mr. Wolfgang Daschner, it does not matter that it was uncertain whether using torture gets the required information. To threaten to use torture is the same as actually torturing, both legally and morally. Should torture and the threat of torture be morally and legally acceptable, then in all levels involving local, state and federal systems should be able to use torture techniques.

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

Next up is Ethical Egoism. Similar to Utilitarianism, it states that an act is procedurally or morally right. However, it is so only if it benefits the specific individual committing the act at that moment. (Jason 5.2; 1) Would it benefit an individual to torture someone? The individual could gain something from it such as prestige for diverting a threat or knowledge otherwise not obtained. But is it worth it? According to Joe Navarro of the F.B.I. “Only a psychopath can torture and be unaffected.” (NY 1) This is a question of good over bad for each specific individual to decide if they would or not torture. It cannot therefore be universalized. Enlightened Egoism on the other hand refers not to immediate effects but to long term effects. With this theory one might consider torture regarding the ticking time bomb scenario for a number of reasons. Perhaps because in the long run, in would be an inconvenience to live in a nuclear waste land, or because they

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines torture as the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something. But what would one call morally acceptable torture? Is sleep depriving a criminal in order to find out the location of a missing person wrong? Does waterboarding a terrorist to find out information count as a morally correct reason to torture?

People’s imaginations start to go wild when they hear the word torture. However, there are enhanced interrogation techniques that are more humane than others. Waterboarding, for example, simulates the effect of drowning and is highly recommended by people such as former Vice President Dick Cheney (Defrank). It is highly unpleasant, but breaks no bones and leaves no bruises. It also exposes those performing the interrogation to lesser psychological strain than other methods that could be used would. Torture is accused of being a cancer in society, but if regulated and reserved for the “especially” bad guys, societal homeostasis would be maintained.

Nations have tortured, both within and without their own citizenry, for thousands of years. The act of systematically inflicting severe harm on a human being for the benefit of others has been met with varying degrees of success.

Torture, an act of punishing people by harming them physically or psychologically. Recently, a lot of debates have been arguing about torture and of course, laws have been set in order to control the use of torture. However, torture is not completely banned, or I should say nowadays there is people still resort to torture. Even in those liberal democratic communities like Canada and the United States are still using torture as a tool in order to get information. Hence, there are people that are against torture and suggest that the use of torture should be completely banned. However, there are people that argue torture should be used under some circumstances. Recently there is a debate between two authors on torture. The two authors are: Charles Krauthammer, who suggests that torture should not be completely banned (2005); and Andrew Sullivan, who suggests that torture, should