Two Accounts for the Moral Wrongness 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

With his article “The Case for Torture” Levin has made his readers think over what the differences between the death penalty and torture. Levin provides evidences and asks questions to lead his readers into forming their own opinion on whether torture is totally unacceptable in any situation or not. But it is clear by the end of the article where Levin stands on the topic of

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

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

According to Joycelyn M. Pollock, torture is defined as the deliberate infliction of violence and, through violence, severe mental and/or physical suffering upon individuals. Torture, according to Christopher Tindale as quoted in Torture and the Ticking bomb by Bob Brecher,

“A Case For Torture” is an essay written by Michael Levin in which he tries to make a compelling case for the use of torture as a punishment during specific situations in the United States. Levin cites different hypothetical situations in order to logically prove his argument. His use of theoretical instances is meant to help direct the reader to an understanding of the applications of his policy on torture. The examples he uses include a hypothetical terrorist attack on Manhattan and hospital robbery. But unfortunately, the examples Levin cites lack strength due to their inapplicability to the current world. Equally important, in today’s terrorist centered climate, there is no room for Levin’s position on torture. Michael Levin in “A Case For Torture” is not logically convincing in his discussion as to why torture is a valid form of punishment, because his assertions rely too heavily on the speculative, and are not contemporary enough for use in modern times.

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.

Second, torture affects to prisoners’ ‘health badly. To torture is to make prisoners extremely hurt and pain, and then they will tell us some information that they know, so we would stop torturing them. Torture can cause death to prisoners if their bodies cannot stand for

In this paper, I will begin by outlining Shue’s argument that while there may be some rare circumstances in which torture would be morally permissible, laws against torture should not be less severe, as torture does not satisfy the constraint of possible compliance (CPC), and other moral considerations. I will argue that since the cessation of torture cannot be guaranteed by the torturer, interrogational torture does not satisfy the CPC. Then, I will consider the objection that in practice, torture systems can ascertain the compliance needed by the victim, and can ensure this compliance is within the victim’s power. I will conclude by countering this point, as systems of torture have proven to be unreliable, and generally, unnecessary.

Subject: The subject of this essay is very clear. It brings up the controversial subject of whether torture can be done in certain contexts. From the beginning, we know the writer's point of view. He believes that it can’t be done on a regular basis but is sometimes not only okay, but necessary.

There are several varieties of tortures in general. Until the twentieth century, most forms of torture that were recognized as such were purely physical in nature. The breaking of bones, manipulation or mutilation of a person's body, and the application of flames or other implements of punishment were the main forms of recognized torture.

The parts in well known movies where the victim is tied to a wall and another causes unnecessary harm to him is classified as torture. In the movie, Saw ll, Jigsaw places a group of people that he believes have done something wrong in a house. Their goal is to work together to escape with clues that Jigsaw gives them. Many torture devices are placed around the house such as a pool of used needles and a furnace. The way to survive the house is to go through torture to get injections needed to stay alive. Torture is pain or physical harm inflicted onto a person by something or someone else. There are many forms of torture and these punishments are usually inflicted for a reason. Like any issue, there are many arguments against torture based on the opinion that it is inhumane. Additionally, laws have been placed into effect to prevent future torture from occurring.

Torture had become a state-sanctioned public marvel. France’s government hoped publicized torture, through an individual observer’s sympathetic identification with the victim, would instill fear in the observers, a fear that would act as a warning to the collective public and provide disincentives for criminal behavior (Hunt 2007). But the opposite occurred; public torture and execution drew immense robust crowds, which viewed the official administration of cruelty as a form of entertainment (Hunt 2007). Viewing and normalizing severe violence like torture degrades the autonomy and humanity of the victim, destroying the connection spectators feel in regards to the victim, thus stunting societal progression. Benjamin Rush, a physician, writer, and humanitarian, argued that both public and private torture violates human rights, and does not act as a motivator of public deterrence from crime, but rather has the exact opposite. Publicized torture deflates the onlookers’ sensibility and bolsters their inability to empathize and understand that the victims of torture have bodies and lives similar to their own (Hunt 2007). Publicized torture violates human rights because of its capacity to demonize and dehumanize its victims; the dehumanization of persons provides justification for any crime that is carried out upon the person because

The “dehumanization” of one’s victims does wonders to calm any qualms or misgivings an individual may experience about injuring another man. By evoking fear in the torturer and therefore, a sense of being threatened by a given enemy, the regime in power causes the torturer to feel obliged to defend against such a threat. Consequently, he will torture his fellow man to procure some valued piece of information and in doing so remove himself from a precarious position and subdue his enemies all at once. Such enemies are viewed as evil and little more than monsters. A victim is rarely referred to by his or her name or by any other humanizing characteristic, rather a victim is most often referred to as some base, nonhuman creature or beast.