Argument Analysis: The Case For Torture By Michael Levin

In modern society, where human rights are highly protected, torture is considered as a hideous crime that makes us feel repugnant. In fact, in a few circumstances, as an interrogation technique, some people are of the opinion that the use of torture is justified. However, torture should still not be legalized because not only the information gathered from it is usually unreliable, but also its effects on both victims and perpetrators are unacceptable. There is no doubt that the confession extracted through torture is not always trusted. Humans, including detainees, mostly tend to avoid pain, which means they may deliver any information just to appease the tormentors instead of the accurate one.

In this paper, I will argue that the intentional killing of innocents in wartime is wrong, because war invites certain moral boundaries and killing innocent people violates these boundaries. First, I will discuss

This presents an opportunity for me to think critically about this topic, and therefore, form my own opinion on whether or not I agree/disagree with the statement provided. For the purpose of this assignment, let’s say that I agree that the death penalty is immoral, and no one who has been successfully taken into custody and imprisoned should ever then be executed. I should also mention, that I think that this statement is partly true, but

If there is no criminal law, the victim or the family member of the victim could punish or even kill the person by saying that they are doing it only to gain the justice. As can be seen, criminal law is very important to protect everyone by preventing the physical harm from

By following such narcissistic reasoning they have failed to be compliant with their moral values; however, there are others that believe that the moral thing to do is to sacrifice ourselves. So it seems that those who deny the moral permissibility of torture, in such cases, are conceding to the moral permissibility of killing. The argument is based on the following premises: 1-Torture is necessary to protect the people. 2-It is in the people’s interest to take moral precedence over others’ interests. 3-Hence, it is morally permissible to go forward with torture.

In reference to a bill introduced to Congress forbidding the use of tactics defined by torture; The United States government must consider all of the ethical options and possibilities they have. Torturing anyone is morally unethical but allowing terrorists to murder innocent civilians is against every moral we, as humans possess. As morally just people America needs to find the exceptions in which we are willing to use torture in countering terrorism. As leaders of the free world our government has the responsibility to do everything in their power to protect innocent people and gain the needed information to do so. In order to win the war on terror, officials will occasionally have no choice but to torture the terrorists withholding information to prevent these attacks on humanity.

Non offending mother and father not most effective ought to assist their youngsters get over maltreatment, but additionally need to address their personal complicity in permitting the maltreatment to arise, or in failing to apprehend the signs and symptoms of abuse of their children. The presence of toddler abuses and neglect in a network reflects attitudes about toddler rearing, punishment, and popularity of violence as a solution to issues.” (pop center.org) ultimately, because many types of child maltreatment are crimes, and due to the fact the effects of infant abuse and overlook consist of delinquency, substance abuse, and violence, efforts to lessen the prevalence of toddler abuse and neglect are important to lengthy-term public health and public protection efforts

Those who approved of torture techniques wanted to protect Americans and “keep faith with the victims of terrorism and to prove to [their] enemies that the United States would pursue justice relentlessly” (McCain). Compared to the previous events, it’s understandable that the U.S. has such a high torture acceptance rate, however countries around the world have margins that are much less in favor for torture, so what’s the difference?

These two issues can go hand in hand because if torture is abused, it will be easier to torture the wrong person; and if the wrong person gets tortured, it can cause more abuses of torture because of the practice of targeting the wrong person. As in all forms of punishment torture can become abused and as such human rights will be violated, and so a question is needed to be answered: when does an action violate a right? Because even when torture is being used for the sake of security and when it is being abused they are both exercising the same

Unless of course, this expression is inciting violent or illegal behaviour, or threatening others, in which case it is directly harmful and should therefore be prohibited. I think J.S. Mill would agree with me on these points as he states “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (Mill, J.S.,1978). Joel Feinberg, who also had very influential views on the Freedom of Speech debate, may respond to Mills view and propose that the Harm Principle is not enough: “In some instances, Feinberg suggests, we also need an offense principle that can act as a guide to public censure. The basic idea is that the harm principle sets the bar too high