Human torture is a controversial issue and one which some people believe it’s acceptable in extreme cases such as terrorism when innocent lives are at stake. The topic of human torture can be expressed several ways. Human torture is not only wrong it is illegal and considered a criminal offense. If convicted, one would serve up to life, depending on the nature of the crime. Additionally, the Bible reads that no one should harm another human and vengeance belong to the Lord (Psalm 94:1; Romans 12:19). Not only is human torture wrong in the eyes of society, but it’s also wrong in the eyes of our Lord. God wrote in one of the ten commandments that “Thou shalt not kill.” The impacts of physically torturing another human can be detrimental. It can cause physical and psychological issues both short and long-term. In short, human torture is cruel, inhuman and not permissible in any situation.
Main Argument:
Premise 1: Human torture involving the use of physical pain or death is wrong by law and in the eyes of our Lord.
Premise 2: Physical torture can impact one’s mental health, which could lead to drug abuse, alcoholism or other forms of abuse.
Premise 3: Human torture is illegal and there are laws that make it a criminal offense.
Conclusion: Therefore, torturing another human is wrong, it’s illegal and can have mental health impacts. The argument that will be presented in this paper is an inductive argument. The premises are true and support the conclusion. The first
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).
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
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
The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution says, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The fundamental idea of torture is to inflict mental or physical pain onto a suspect to coerce them into revealing information we desire. This tactic is illegal because it violates the Constitution, and in addition, it violates international agreements that our nation has committed itself to. The general provisions of the Geneva Conference of 1949 prevent the use of torture in warfare; the document specifically outlaws “Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating or degrading treatment…” By violating these laws, particularly the Constitution, our nation
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)
Torture falls under the category of cruel and unusual punishment, however circumstance can sway the attitude towards the use of torture. The most prevalent example in society, as well as the one used in the article “The Torture Debate” by Philip Rumney and Martin O’Boyle is terrorism. Based on the information presented in the article I agree that a legalized torture system should be developed under specific
In “The Case for Torure” Michael Levin executes poor grammar, inadequate evidence, and ridiculous ideas to voice his opinion. The grammar is what is to be expected from a high school student, not that of a philosophy major. His facts are insufficiently backed up, and he provides no evidence, or rebuttals whatsoever. The entire paper is more of an opinion than an intelligent argument.
From Christian-princible based ethics I believe we must follow the moral rules which are provided for us in the Ten Commandments. Although this seems likea a case where the rules should be bent the law does not indorce torturing as a means to get answers we want provided. Due to the laws being what they are in the United States it would not be right to torture
The foremost unethical consequence of torture is the undeniable emotional and physical pain it leaves on people. Many forms of torture exist in the world, from isolation (a state where one is normally confined in a small single-colored room without any windows or cellmates to communicate with) to abacination (the act of making a person blind by holding a hot red plate to their eyes). In any and most torture occurrences, the person being torture is brutally scared for the rest of
Wonderful, short, summary of the views applicable to this case, and the defense for the view that you hold most. However, I believe that there is more to the Christian-principle based view of ethics, than what you give credit for. According to Arthur F. Holmes’ book, Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions, one would find that the Christian view holds four tenants, or ideas, to shape the understanding of ethics, in which these views are: cases, area rules (moral rules), principles, bases (theological and philosophical). Thereby, one must go through these four sets of criteria to figure out if an action is right or if it is wrong. Following this line of logic, and if one were to look in the Bible for the answers, one would find torture is not right.
At first glance, Utilitarian moral theories may seem to support the idea of torturing this innocent man. If we look at this situation we see that there is a dilemma of hurting one man, or having to bear the death of many. We may say that since the basis of Utilitarianism is
To see if the US should forbid torture, we must first define torture. Contrary to popular belief, “some forms of torture were designed solely to kill the victim in as agonizing a way as possible, not to extract information or a confession” (Chapter X: Torture, Ticking Bombs, and Buried Coffins). A broad definition of torture states that “They all are acts that cause intense physical pain and mental anguish, and they all are acts where the agents intend to cause intense physical pain and mental anguish” (Chapter X: Torture, Ticking Bombs, and Buried Coffins). The U. N. Convention defines the term "torture" as, “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