Pros And Cons 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

In the News Week article from 1982 Michael Levin an American philosopher and university professor, presents his premises and his conclusion to why he personally believes that torture is morally permissible. In addition Levin’s expects others to understand why such thing as torture is a permissible act that everyone should incorporate as a morally acceptable act. To commence, Levin presents his topic by presenting the usual though that torture may seem barbaric; however, he then diverts to his issue, in which he personally states his believe in the quote “There are situations in which torture is not merely permissible but morally mandatory.” Then, Levin moves on to explain his reasons for why he believes in such moral claim. For

In contrast, some individuals may debate that torture and even some more minuscule forms of torture can be beneficial to obtaining the information needed. It is debated that torture has been used in a large portion of political systems in history, and that the “degree” of torture is a significant component when deciphering right vs. wrong. Moher argues that in a political system where torture is justifiable and legal, the torture used would be less extreme than what it is today (Moher, 2013). It is reasoned that different degrees of torture are more acceptable than others, in that some are less psychologically and physically harming. A

David Figueroa Eng. 101A Professor Stern 4/20/15 Final draft In conclusion, in discussions of torture, one controversial issue has been on the use of it. On one hand, the people against torture argue that it is cruel and unusual punishment. On the other hand, those for torture argue that it should be used for the greater good. Others even maintain that under extreme circumstances, it may be admissible if it can save American lives. My own view is that no one should be subjected to cruel punishment because it is not only illegal, unreliable, ineffective, time consuming, it also has too many flaws that could potentially ruin innocent lives. The definition of torture is any act, whether physical or emotional, or maybe both, is intentionally subjected to a specific individual or a group for many reasons. Most of these reasons that torture is administered is for extracting information from an individual or just for punishing him/her for a crime that he/she has committed or is suspected of committing. The use of torture can be used to intimidate a person to give information that may be beneficial for a nation. The use of torture has been used for many centuries. The purposes of using torture have changed over the years as well as the methods in which a person is tortured. One crucial piece that has been established that separates us human beings from barbarians is the prohibition of using torture. There are many reasons why torture has been deemed a crime now in society. There are

In the article, “Laying Claim to a Higher Morality,” Melissa Mae discusses the controversial topic of using torture as a part of interrogating detainees. She finds the common ground between the supporting and opposing sides of the argument by comparing two different sources, “Inhuman Behavior” and “A Case for Torture.” Mae includes clear transitions from each side of the argument and concise details to ensure that the essay was well constructed. The purpose of the essay is clear, and it is interesting, insightful, and unbiased.

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).

The War on Terror has produced several different viewpoints on the utilization of torture and its effectiveness as a means to elicit information. A main argument has been supplied that torture is ineffective in its purpose to gather information from the victim. The usefulness of torture has been questioned because prisoners might use false information to elude their torturers, which has occurred in previous cases of torture. It has also been supposed that torture is necessary in order to use the information to save many lives. Torture has been compared to civil disobedience. In addition, the argument has been raised that torture is immoral and inhumane. Lastly, Some say that the acts are not even regarded as torture.

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

Let us begin with Michael Levin, whose thesis states, “There are situations in which torture is not merely permissible but not morally mandatory,” in the second

Torture has long been a controversial issue in the battle against terrorism. Especially, the catastrophic incident of September 11, 2001 has once again brought the issue into debate, and this time with more rage than ever before. Even until today, the debate over should we or should we not use torture interrogation to obtain information from terrorists has never died down. Many questions were brought up: Does the method go against the law of human rights? Does it help prevent more terrorist attacks? Should it be made visible by law? It is undeniable that the use of torture interrogation surely brings up a lot of problems as well as criticism. One of the biggest problems is that if torture is effective at all. There are

The appeal of the McCain-Feinstein amendment is its comparatively restrictive nature. In the words of constitutional law professor, David Cole, with particular reference to the past actions of the Bush administration, ‘the new legislation seems designed to prevent future administrations from interpreting existing laws to permit what they were plainly designed to prohibit’ (Cole, D 2015). In other words, the amendment approaches the problem from a different perspective in contrast to previous prohibitions. Rather than expressing a broad prohibition, it restricts interrogators to a definitive list of approved techniques (Feinstein, D 2015). This approach, thus, essentially avoids the ambiguity that has become an enduring quality of international human rights law in relation to torture (Cole, D 2015; Levinson, S 2015, pp. 2017-2018). In succinct terms, if a technique is not authorised, it is affirmatively prohibited. To this avail, in stark contrast with its predecessors, this legislation may yet prove to be instrumental in the prevention of torture.

Torture has been used throughout history to obtain pertinent information from terrorists of the state by using many different techniques both physical and emotional. The definition of torture as it pertains to gaining information is any “act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession” according to the Convention Against Torture. The legality of torture has been discussed within the international community multiple times creating multiple treaties. Such treaties came from the Geneva Convention and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. While the countries who sign these treaties have an obligation to create effective legislation against the torture of terrorists, some countries still skirt around the international laws. The United States has used torture in the recent years to obtain intelligence from suspected terrorists. The moral dilemmas behind these actions are controversial and are debated whether or not such actions should be used to achieve information. While some organizations believe the torture of terrorists is beneficial to the United States, torture is immoral, unjust, and should not be used by any organization or state to achieve its goals. The basis for the argument against torture can be affirmed using well known and accepted moral understanding from known

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.

Human rights, for centuries, has been a buzzword, creating an illusion of equality between people, united in their differences, but it is clear from the callous use of torture throughout history that human rights is only inclusive to those whom society favors. Torture is an act of repression, and establishes a direct attack to the core of human autonomy. One human being is degraded to the state of a non-human object, deprived of all empathy and legal personality. Torture has always aimed to devastate human dignity and diminish its victim to the status of a passive tool of the torturer or judicial system, as seen in Europe in the 1700s. But during this time, with the trepid introduction of human rights and the social feelings associated with

The notion of “authorization” as permitting the existence of torture is apparent in the fact that though an individual may “theoretically, . . . [have] a choice” to refrain from such activity, “given the situational context . . . the concept of choice is not even present”; disobedience to the dictates of authority means “punishment, disgrace, humiliation, expulsion, or even death” (196). Therefore, one is freed from moral unease by the fact that he may feel trapped and unable to act against his superiors, as retaliation would be imminent. In some instances, as was demonstrated by