Is Torture Right Or Wrong

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

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.

Bloche talks about how advanced interrogation and torture techniques have emerged to adapt to specific situations; and that many people believe that torture doesn’t help anything because people will say anything to get out of such tortures (Bloche 115). The article states that nothing can force someone to tell the truth; however, through harsh methods of abuse, you can instill a sense of hopelessness in the person being interrogated (Bloche

Through out the history of the country, the U.S. have torture people for information. For example, Brown v. Mississippi a sheriff who questioned three African Americans, in the most heinous way. He hipped and hanged them for no true reason (Hickey, T., 2014). The

Is torture justified? Does it make us feel safer? Most Americans would say that it is immoral to torture any human being for any reason. There are a few people left who would disagree with that and say that some deserve to be tortured in order to obtain information that could potentially save the lives of hundreds or thousands.

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.

Following along with the ticking time bomb scenario or any other future terrorist attack, many opponents of torture like to argue, how do the investigators really know the person they have in custody is for sure the terrorist who knows where the location of the bomb is or any other information that is needed. What if that isn’t the right person and the one who is in custody is being tortured but is completely innocent. The way that technology is improving and advancing from day to day, the idea of being wrong is very rare (Torture). Before investigators and researchers take the time to arrest the terrorist and get them in custody, they do precise investigations to make sure they are right. They will not take into custody and torture the person

Torture may have different meanings depending on the situation at hand. Even so, everyone’s’ idea of it consist of the same actions such as beatings, electric shocks, use of equipment that causes extraordinary pain, drugging and even rape to harm the bodies and minds of someone or something.

The United Nations defines torture as any act by which severe physical or mental pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining information or a confession, or punishing a person for an act that he is suspected of having committed. Torture also includes intimidating or coercing a person for any reason based on discrimination of any kind when a person acting in an official capacity inflicts pain or suffering (Convention Against Torture para. 2). Although some people believe that torture is acceptable, in reality it is neither an acceptable nor a reliable method for obtaining information and should not be continued.

Since the time of Ancient Greece, there has been an ongoing debate whether torture should be permitted in the United States of America. Torture is define as the intentional use to inflict physical or physiological pain to control and gain advantage over an individual.

From the perspective of someone like Kant who believes that morality is absolute and torture is wrong, then it is never acceptable no matter what the consequences. Kant would argue that it is better to allow a 'ticking bomb' to go off and kill thousands by not using torture than to willingly torture someone, because as mere mortals we can never know for certain what the ultimate results of our actions will be - there may not be a bomb at all, or the man you have may not be the one who set it, or someone else may disarm it - but we can be certain of our intent, and thus we should never act with evil intent, which wilful torture certainly is.

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

Michael Yoo used several definitions from several different places to define torture in his argument. The first definition is the one he used when he defined torture as the following: 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. The other definition he uses it used to show what the government defines torture as. This definition is as follows: The United States

Most of the controversy surrounding the use of torture is rooted in the ethical reasoning that is used to justify it. Before 9/11, it would have been incredibly hard to justify the use of torture or enhanced interrogation techniques on known terrorists and prisoners of war. The very idea of torturing another human being would force the American people to put aside some of their most cherished morals and beliefs, in a way that would render ourselves no better than the enemy and strip ourselves of the moral high ground. The culture of the United States, and other developed countries, made torture a longstanding unacceptable taboo and violation of basic human rights and dignity. Torture was an unnecessary, unethical, and unreliable practice that had no place in American policy before 9/11.

Consider the following situation: You are an army officer who has just captured an enemy soldier who knows where a secret time bomb has been planted. Unless defused, the bomb will explode, killing thousands of people. Would it be morally permissible to torture them to get him to reveal the bomb’s location? Discuss this problem in light of both Utilitarian and Kantian moral theories and present arguments from both moral perspectives for why torture is morally wrong.