Torture: Justified or Unjustified?

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.

Levin begins by tacitly admitting that torture is both unconstitutional and barbaric, but then follows each of those premises up with comparisons of the alternative of not using torture. Levin states: “Torturing the terrorist unconstitutional? Probably. But millions of lives surely outweigh constitutionality.” (Michael Levin, pg. 605) Levin begins with comforting you with the notion that torture is unconstitutional, as you would

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.

Throughout Levin’s essay he is vague on the definition of torture. He uses the “most excruciating pain possible” to help give the idea of how extreme he wants the torture to be. The only time he gives a hint to any kind of torture is when he refers to the use of “electrodes”. He keeps the reader unaware of the torture methods that are available. As well as he offers no personal experience on the matter. Nor any reliable

Dick Cheney, the former US vice-president, has claimed that waterboarding torture “helped produce the intelligence that allowed us to get Osama bin Laden”. The act of torture to retrieve information from a human being is widely used through the world. The government use of torture during interrogation is ethically justifiable. The use of torture throughout Earth’s history gives evidence supporting torture for interrogation purposes. If you look at different time periods of the world, you will find that torture has been around for a very long time. The use of torture was handled differently in different eras but they all give evidence supporting that torture is ethically justifiable. A few important examples that show evidence

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines torture as the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something. But what would one call morally acceptable torture? Is sleep depriving a criminal in order to find out the location of a missing person wrong? Does waterboarding a terrorist to find out information count as a morally correct reason to torture?

When is torture justified? Scholars in social psychology, sociology, history, and even literature whose ideas would help clarify the use of dehumanization. Torture and dehumanization dates back centuries along the colonial era. George J Annas’ Post-9/11 Torture at CIA “Black Sites”- Physicians and Lawyers Working Together” uncovers the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report and it’s hidden injustice. Charles B. Strozier’s “Torture, War, and the Culture of Fear After 9/11” insist that torture has its tactical benefits, however it is inhumane and ethically wrong. "Trump Says 'Torture Works,' Backs Waterboarding and 'Much Worse” by Johnson Jenna reports on Trump and his support of torture. "Torture as an Absolute Wrong” by Jacob Sullum suggest

There are many views or definition of the word “torture”, which is often debated by many individuals. According to “International Rehabilitation Council For Torture Victims” (2005-2012), “torture is an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining information or a confession, punishing him for an act committed” (para. 2). “Torture is anguish of body or mind; something that causes agony or pain; the infliction of intense pain (from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure; or distortion or over

Torture should be allowed in for the following reasons. First of all, torture gives agents more time to solve cases. If agents need information quickly because of a threat, torture gets the information out much quicker giving the agents more time to respond to the situation. Secondly, many terrorists plots have been foiled. A terrorist plot was foiled by the Bush administration when Khalid Shaikh Muhammed was tortured, saving countless lives. To conclude, torture should be allowed.

Torture is one of the most controversial topics of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. The age of terrorism has forced the topic to be introduced to the Legislative Branch. Now that technology is present in every aspect of life the gruesome interrogations of terrorist organizations are privy to the average Joe. Many people believe that torture is both barbaric and uncivilized reserved for third world countries and fragile regimes. These individuals tend to agree that torture is any action or practice of inflicting sever pain on someone in the version of physical or mental abuse with the desire to degrade or humiliate. However, there are individuals who believe that torture is a necessary evil; even though most third world countries

In conclusion, torture is an issue which arouses a great deal of controversy and current debate between those who are pro and against it. In one hand, those who are against the use of torture in any case, argue that torture is immoral, it is against the law, and it also contributes to our society losing values. In the other hand, there are those who think that torture is a necessary and a proper tool to ensure safety and protection for all the people. We all agree that the responsibility of very government in the world is to make sure that their citizens are safe, no matter what they have to do or what means they have to

Despite the unconstitutionality of the practice, torture has had a presence throughout our nation’s history. From the Salem witch trials of 1692, in which Giles Corey was pressed to death, to the twenty-first century waterboarding of terrorist suspects, the United States has not always lived up to the ideal that torture should never be used for any purpose. The popular culture image of a man being beaten by police officers in a locked room away from public view is not just fiction but a semi-officially accepted means of ‘getting the job done.’ Alan Dershowitz refers to the specific example of “… a case decided in 1984, [in which] the Court of Appeals for the 11th circuit commended police officers who tortured a kidnapper into

Torture, Levin asserts, is only justifiable in order to save lives, and only when administered to parties "known to have innocent lives in their hands." Torture can never be used as punishment, nor as a deterrent, nor can it ever be employed unless the subject is "obviously guilty." While these restrictions serve to moderate Levin's stance, they also narrow the scope of The Case immeasurably, by grossly curtailing the number of scenarios which demand the use of torture. It reduces this number so drastically, in fact, that Levin is unable to name one real-world example to which his argument applies. The author's failure to list even one real historical event in

Throughout history, torture was used a method to punish those who broke laws or defied traditional ideals. An example of this would be from medieval Spain when the Spanish Inquisition would torture those who didn’t follow the orthodox Catholic ideology. The methods that were used were outright painful, humiliating, and lethal, but it was often justified at the time. In modern times, torture cannot be justified. Torture is defined, by the United Nations in Article I of the Convention against Torture, as any “act by which severe pain and suffering… is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining information… a confession… [or] punishment for an act” (United Nations). With this definition, one can simply look at the current status of the United States’ so-called enhanced interrogation and justify that it is a method of torture. Any arguments that are in favour of torture are also, inherently, in favour for the violation of inalienable human rights. Torture shouldn’t and mustn't be used for three main arguments: it is brutal, and it is inhumane, and it doesn’t always work. If someone needs information, then it must be acquired through peaceful means.

Torture is a hugely controversial subject in our society today. Torture is defined as an intentional use of pain or abuse to gain an advantage over an individual. According to TheWeeklyStandard, torture is applied to prisoners or detained person to obtain admission of crime or to simply impose pain and suffering as a punishment (Krauthammer). Torture is also used to get information from the suspects by hurting them physically, mentally and emotionally. However, many argue that torture is against human rights and can defeat its purpose. Torture is cruel and inhumane, it can cause more damage to the situation, and it is unconstitutional.