The Ethics And Ethics Of 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

In “The Case for Torture”, philosophy professor Michael Levin attempts to defend using torture as a means to save lives is justifiable and necessary. Throughout the article, Levin provides persuasive arguments to support his essay using clever wording and powerful, moving examples. However, the essay consists heavily of pathos, fallacies, and “What if?” situations that single out torture as the only method of resolution, rendering the argument hypothetical, weak, and unreliable for the city of San Jose as a whole community to follow.

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

A plane just crashed into one of the World Trade Centers; a few minutes later a second plane hits the other tower. What happened to all of the other planned attacks on that very day and the days that followed? A special sect of law enforcement called the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) prides itself with quickly tracking down some of the terrorists that were involved in the attacks and effectively questioning them using various interrogation tactics, one of which is torture. The CIA’s approach to torture after 9/11 using techniques such as water boarding has proven to save lives and prevent future tragedies in spite of common controversy. In times of crisis, water boarding acquires the essential lifesaving information in time sensitive

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

When the news of torture at Abu Ghraib prison broke in early 2004 during the “global war on terror,” much of the public was outraged and did not know how to react. Heavy debate began over the issue and media reporters on the issues took sides. Many books were written about the subject. The conservatives attempted to downsize the issues and take the side that it was simply ‘bored’ and ‘tense’ soldiers trying to blow off a little steam with horseplay. However, the photographs that surface said quite differently. Naked photographs of prisoners engaged in simulated sexual acts, deceased prisoners in sexual poses and prisoners tied up and left for dead tell the chilling story of the terror and torture behind the prison walls. Did the US do

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.

In 2014, the Senate Select Committee released its key findings of the CIA torture report. Their conclusions and summary listed in the report were shocking. For years now, debate has been going on as to whether the CIA torture reports should have been released. It may even be considered one of the biggest conspiracy theories of all time. Some claim it should not have been released, to protect the citizens. While others argue, it should be released because it is our right to know. The controversy lies in if cruel and unusual punishment was occurring, then the public should have been informed. Secondly, if inhumane treatment is being administered by our government, the world’s perception of America ‘the land of the free’ is vastly compromised

The morality of torture has been debated for years. This paper will specifically discuss two articles of opposing viewpoints. David Gushee fervently argues against torture in his article Torture is Always Morally Wrong. In Torture is Moral When Inflicted for a Greater Good Patrick Buchanan argues in favor of torture. The latter of the two, presents the strongest case. Each article grapples the issue of torture in a unique perspective. Gushee’s bold stance against torture is clearly influenced by his Christianity. Gushee’s stance, is in sharp contrast to Buchannan who uses a strictly secular approach to form his world view. Both writers managed to write passionate and persuasive articles, However Buchanan’s article is superior to Gushee’s in ever way

In “The Case For Torture” an article written by Michael Levin, he attempts to justify the use of torture as a means of saving lives. Throughout the article, Levin gives the reader many hypothetical examples in which he believes torture is the only method of resolution. Though I agree with Levin, to some degree, his essay relies heavily on the fears of people and exploits them to convince people into thinking pain is the only way. In certain aspects, I could agree entirely with Levin, but when one reads deeper into the article, many fallacies become apparent. These fallacies detract from the articles academic standing and arguably renders the entire case futile. Levin’s strategy of playing with the fears of people is genius, but, with more

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

Ten years ago on September 11th, terrorists successfully carried out a plan to kill thousands of innocent American civilians. On that day millions of Americans watched in horror and disbelief. How could something like this happen on American soil? In quick retaliation, President George W. Bush forcefully declared a war against terrorism and specifically against those responsible for the slaughter of his people, Al Qaida. At the head of this organization and architect of “9-11” was a man by the name of Osama Bin Laden. He openly boasted of the devastation he had caused, which in turn enraged the American people. This man eluded us for the past ten years until a little over a week ago President Barack Obama announced to the world that

After World War II, countries put in the Geneva Conventions that governed the treatment of wartime prisoners and civilians in occupied territories because of the catastrophic and inhumane conduct that was perpetrated by the Germans, Japanese, and Italians (Center for Constitution Rights, 2006). Although there have been some amendments, for the most part, this agreement has remained in place until the onset of terrorist attacks. When the United States was attacked on its own soil in 2001 by al Qaeda, Americans became engaged in a different kind of war, a war against individuals without country borders, and it was coined the war on terrorism. With this in mind, officials determined that the rules of the Geneva Conventions did not apply, and interrogation techniques that utilized physical and psychological torture were appropriate. This unilateral decision to disregard common protocols was based on the consequentialism view; tormenting enemies is justified if lives can be saved. Torturous acts were acceptable, if captives divulged pertinent information. While the security of any country is imperative, torture under any circumstance is wrong, even if it is practical and the results are favorable.

Using Torture as a useful interrogation tool for particularly heinous crimes like rape, child molestation, murders, etc. is okay because sometimes information is more important than morals, everybody learns from the situation, and they deserve it; especially if they’re proven guilty.

Should torture be used by police and the United States military? Some say yes, law enforcement should use all means available to apprehend terrorists and other dangerous criminals. They believe public safety and national security trump individual safety, and that some people are not worthy of humane treatment. The increasing amount of mass shootings and terrorist attacks happening in our country prove torture tactics should be used. People who commit serious acts of violence should be subject to serious methods and our military should be able to execute without hesitation.