The Moral Of Using 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

Torture is known as the intentional infliction of either physical or psychological harm for the purpose of gaining something – typically information – from the subject for the benefit of the inflictor. Normal human morality would typically argue that this is a wrongful and horrendous act. On the contrary, to deal with the “war on terrorism” torture has begun to work its way towards being an accepted plan of action against terrorism targeting the United States. Terroristic acts perpetrate anger in individuals throughout the United States, so torture has migrated to being considered as a viable form of action through a blind eye. Suspect terrorists arguably have basic human rights and should not be put through such psychologically and physically damaging circumstances.

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).

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.

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.

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, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. (85)

According to Jessica Wolfendale, the author of the article “Training Torture: A Critique of the Ticking Bomb Argument,” “We have every reason to doubt that military and political authorities will use torture only in extreme cases” (Wolfendale 270). In other words, she states that if torture becomes acceptable, the government will find different ways to apply it to everyone with no exceptions or restrictions to achieve a goal. My interpretation of Wolfendale’s statements is that an individual has the right to question and demand answers. She is right to assume that torture is not going to stop in extreme cases. I agree with her view that it will get out of hand, because the government seem to look for new ways to apply laws.

The United States has been, and may again be, under terrorist threat and attacks or other similar incidents. Torture can be used to prevent these terrible incidents and save the lives of many people. Torture in the United States has been a debatable subject for many years now but after resent tragedies, the idea of torture of many American citizens has changed. It has also been debated over more after the attacks on September 9, 2001 than any other time in American history. Many fight the legalization of torture for moral and civil reasons but the truth is that torture is a lesser evil that can be used for a greater good.

Not only can torture do cruel things to the person receiving the affliction, but it can also affect the torturer. When a person gives torture, it damages the humanity of them, which means they will never be the same person again. When torture is used, the victim is treated as a “thing” rather than a person. The receiver is basically dehumanized to achieve the desires of the torturer. Although torture can be used to discover new information, it does not always work that way. Torture can cause inaccurate information to be provided due to the want for the torture to be finished with. In some cases, torture is not the

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.

Torture has been around for a long time. However, most countries in the world have supposedly stopped using it as an interrogation technique. In fact, it is outlawed by: the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United National Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and many other international conventions. Also, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court says that “torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” are war crimes and crimes against humanity (What does the law). In his essay “A Case for Torture,” though, Michael Levin argues that a case for using

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