The Case for Torture Wins Torture is it morally acceptable? Many have debated this argument but I would like to bring up two main conflicting view points from Michael Levin, and Marzieh Ghisai. Michael Levin is a Jewish law professor who wrote The Case for Torture where he advocates where torture is acceptable in some circumstances.
Torture as a form of interrogation dates back to 530AD, when Roman jurists espoused the virtues of torture as “the highest form of truth” (Ross, 2005, p. 4). Greek legal orator Demosthenes believed that “no statements made as a result of torture have ever been proved untrue”. Torture can be defined as an act inflicting mental or physical pain and suffering in order to obtain information, punish, intimidate or for any reason from a person or a third person. The 20th Century saw a revival of torture techniques against perceived opponents of the state, and priority was given to state security. The Stalinist regime of the 1930s used torture to instil terror into the population, marking a convergence away from its traditional use to generate confessions (Green, 2011).
2016). Using this ethical framework to argue against torture, one needs to consider the violation of the terrorist’s rights. Utilitarians argue that under a scenario where thousands of people are in danger, the well-being of the larger community is more important than neglecting the rights of a single individual (Krauthammer 2005). The simple idea of taking away a person’s autonomy for the sake of others violates rights ethics. To comprehend the violation upon the victim’s rights, it is important to understand how torture feels, “Brian describes his body as having become an object… pain is the central reality; it dominates experience and expression (Wisnewski 2010, 81).”
In Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture”, he uses many cases of emotional appeal to persuade the reader that torture is necessary in extreme cases. There are many terms/statements that stick with the reader throughout the essay so that they will have more attachment to what is being said. Levin is particularly leaning to an audience based in the United States because he uses an allusion to reference an event that happened within the states and will better relate to the people that were impacted by it. The emotional appeals used in this essay are used for the purpose of persuading the reader to agree that in extreme instances torture is necessary and the United States should begin considering it as a tactic for future cases of extremity. One major eye catching factor of this essay is the repetitive use of words that imply certain stigmas.
In Michael Levin's The Case for Torture, Levin provides an argument in which he discusses the significance of inflicting torture to perpetrators as a way of punishment. In his argument, he dispenses a critical approach into what he believes justifies torture in certain situations. Torture is assumed to be banned in our culture and the thought of it takes society back to the brutal ages. He argues that societies that are enlightened reject torture and the authoritative figure that engage in its application risk the displeasure of the United States. In his perspective, he provides instances in which wrongdoers put the lives of innocent people at risk and discusses the aspect of death and idealism.
Should Torture Ever be Justified? What is the overall view on the morality of torture? Are you an absolutist, one who holds absolute principles in political, philosophical, or theological matters, or one that strongly agrees or disagrees with the matter overall? Torture’s main purpose is to extract confessions, to terrorize people that are associated with people, to punish those that have been presumed as wrongdoers, and to amuse sadist or bullies.
Torture, though it may never have a solid answer, is at times justified through morals or thought to be necessary. As a form of capital punishment, persecution is wrong because each human being not only has rights, but is unique and precious. In the perspective that cruelty happening to save the lives of other human beings, the question of whether torture is acceptable then is raised. The topic of torture can be seen in many various perspectives, but four of those include utilitarianism, Kantian duty-based ethics, virtue ethics, and Christian-principle based ethics.
A Fictional Dystopian Society or an Insight of the Real Future? Is there ever the possibility of establishing a dystopian society? A society requiring oppressive control of their populace causes fear and oppression into their citizens. George Orwell concocts, a dystopian society, Oceania, in his novel, 1984. Here all individuality is destroyed and the party rules over the society.
George Orwell’s 1984, has contains several out of the ordinary themes. From the opening of the novel Orwell paints Oceania as a gloomy, dingy place. He describes the physical emptiness of Oceania and hints at the decomposing of the human spirit. Toward the end of Section One, Orwell takes the reader deeper and begins to illustrate how the physical darkness of this totalitarian work is a reflection of the destruction of basic human values.
Did George Orwell actually portray Winston Smith as a hero in the critically acclaimed novel 1984? According to the Merriam Webster-Dictionary heroism is defined as “heroic conduct especially as exhibited in fulfilling a higher purpose or attaining a noble end.” Acts of heroism are performed all over the world by various individuals in all walks of life. Today, acts of heroism are constantly announced on the news, internet, and by word of mouth. Examples of heroism are displayed in ordinary people who perform extraordinary acts of bravery in order to rescue an injured victim during a car accident; while other acts of heroism may include men who risk their lives in order to rescue a victim from a car accident just before the victim’s car explodes.
The main goal of a terrorist is to instill terror by deliberately killing innocent people. For example, the devastating act of 9/11 was an act of terrorism where thousands of innocent people were killed while going about their daily activities. In these situations, the priority of the terrorist is to intentionally harm civilians with no means of harming the people that are directly against their views such as government or military individuals. The severity of these actions cause extreme pain and suffering for so many families and, as a result, I believe that in some cases torture is permissible if it can prevent a tragedy like this from happening again. I believe that if there is an individual that is believed to be a terrorist and is planning a mass causality such as a bomb or another terrorist attack and there is almost certainty that they are withholding information that could lead to the deaths of thousands of people- torture should come into
ON TORTURE This paper will systematically investigate different positions taken on the moral permissibility of torture, to reveal that torture is not to be accepted or justified under any circumstance. In order to effectively address the matter, we ought to come to definitional terms with “torture”, despite the lack of unanimity and the spread of contextual usage of the term. For the scope of this paper, the term “torture” will be adopted to refer to any act by which mental or physical pain is inflicted on a person as punishment for an accused act, or coercion as a means to acquire confessions or information.
Imagine having someone watching every move you make and every decision you take twenty- four hours a day, three-hundred-sixty-five days a year and as you live your life the things you’ve made are being saved without you knowing by Big Brother. This is exactly what is going on the novel called “1984” by George Orwell. The novel is based on a communist country that spies on their people day and night. Big Brother being the supreme leader has everyone working in different stations or zones. The main character we focus on this novel is named Winstone who works under the sight of big brother by changing information on the newspaper and recording who died in battle along with who they’ll replace him with. Winstone is a depressed man who doesn’t
No hope. This is the message portrayed in the novel 1984 written by George Orwell. The novel follows the story of a man named Winston who attempts to resist a totalitarian government known as the Party. In the end his efforts are futile, just as all the others before. Within the book, the Party is a well set-up government with a great future prospect. Although the novel portrays the success of the Party in 1984, it would fail definitely today. The Party is a brutal government constructed on forced compliance and torture.