John Stuart Mill The Ethics 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

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).

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

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

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.

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

When one thinks of torture they are not thinking about bunnies, rainbows, and lollipops. Instead, one will illustrate the idea of dungeons, the Middle Ages, and people being punished in horrendous ways. Torture is not something like candy in which one may say it is delicious, while another believes it is disgusting. Torture is viewed in society in one way only, and it happens to be in a negative manner. When defining torture, the most common widely used definitions are: the infliction of intense pain to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure, something that causes agony or pain, and the anguish of body and mind. All of these definitions are in accordance to the same word: pain. The word pain itself generally has a negative connotation; by any sense it is unpleasant. A great amount of individuals believe that torture is justifiable when being used for the greater good, however, even if torture is being utilized for the greater good, it is still going to be an immoral act.

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

While torture is something some people would cringe at, others may approve of it as a useful tool. Is any government ever justified in using torture to gain information?

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.

To torture or not to torture, is a huge controversial subject in today’s society. We have seen how many are tortured throughout the world for information and ultimately result in an undeserved death. By torturing men, women, and even children is to help find pertinent information or help stop future attacks. Not everyone is going to see eye to eye on whether or not torture is the right thing to do to gain information. There are four theories we are to discuss utilitarianism, Kantian duty-based ethics, virtue ethics, and Christian-principle based ethics.

“In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity”(Tzu). What is sought after most in any sort of conflict is an advantage to win or to prevent further loss in life. Pieces of information can be obtained in a various number of ways, each approach determining the likelihood of a response and its overall accuracy. Recently the idea of torture has been brought to the table whether it is beneficial and once again Americans are split on this topic. Although in the past, many thought torture was effective since many believed the idea of pain lead to an absolute truth, in reality torture as a whole does not increase the chance to obtain time sensitive information, whether the abuse is physical or psychological.