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. In defense of the argument for the absolute prohibition of torture the understanding of the phenomenology of torture is pivotal;
Rough Draft for Evil “In a perfect world, probably we’d never yell, we’d just be firm and dispassionate” (Waldman). Delusional thoughts and evil passions would be overcome with the influence of morals and reasoning which alludes to a coherent society. But returning to reality, people of all backgrounds face a universal threat causing pain and suffering; it is called torture. Torturers feed on the pleasure of inflicting pain, and this is triggered by the emotional passion that brings out the id in humans. This kind of evil exemplifies the uncontrollable passion that has a profound impact on governing behavior.
The Doctrine of Double Effect is the process in which someone must sacrifice some bad to achieve more good. According to Alison McIntyre of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2014) defines the concept as “The doctrine (or principle) of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side effect of promoting some positive end”. This is often referred to in the military as “collateral damage”. While your goal is to not have any unintended casualties, if the threat is so great that you must take the chance and harm civilians, you take it. Thomas Scanlon’s view on the Doctrine of Double Effect is that it is never justified to take a life, regardless of the value added that may come of it (Lippert-Rasmussen & Kasper, 2010).
He blames the state government with the oppression for raging his hatred in the first place. Therefore, the society is no longer protected by law and order, forcing him to create his religion as V and a new set of standards towards right and wrong, threatening social stability. The remarkable logo of V spotted in the film, similar to ISIS declaring its flag to affirm its international status. V as a politically motivated terrorist also resembles with the definition of politically rational terrorism. Sebastian elaborates that terrorists are expected to weigh costs and benefits of the available options and to choose the one that promises the highest expected utility in political
He pleads with his audience trying to turn America away from the “already critical stage of depression and self degradation.” His proposal entails the increased “usage of antidepressants” in order to “restore our well being.” Employing the black-and-white fallacy, Termorshuizen portrays his satire by revealing the only two options for America consist of mental enlightenment or total destruction, separated only by antidepressants. Applying this, he appeals to the logical minds of the reader who realize that antidepressants may not fix the issue, and also points out the ridiculousness of the advertised issue of annihilation due to
Erich Fromm writes that revenge can be differentiated from normal defensive aggression in two ways – first, it occurs after the damage has been done, and hence is not a defence against threat, but of a much greater intensity; and second, it is often cruel, lustful and insatiable, where the problem of vengeance is a social problem that must be resolved in the complex interaction between the victim, the perpetrator and the social group . Therefore the revenge of the Illuminati is an example of justice going awry and taking over when society’s institutions fail. Because when justice is not forthcoming from a higher authority, people will and do take justice into their own hands. Acts of vengeance are the result. Punishment through retaliation is the typical response to breaking the rules of justice.
Utilitarianism would look at this situation as a wrongful action. According to teleological created by John Stuart Mill the action that happens is based of the good that comes from said action. In this case Payne’s action while arresting Ms. Wobbles would go against teleological due to being negative in nature and doing more harm then good for either parties involved. According to Jeremy Bentham the goodness of the action is based on the consequences of the action that is made. I believe that Payne does deserve to be terminated from the department and rightfully tried in court for all the departmental policies that were broke during the arrest of Ms. Wobbles.
The word terrorist attaches to every part of this essay so that the reader will view them in a negative light and become persuaded to believe that torture is a necessary action to perform on them (terrorists). The word innocent also attaches to every part of this essay to make the reader become a defender to those “who never asked to be in danger”. This word (innocent) also connects with the word baby because whenever a person thinks about a baby the adjectives that are associated with it are helpless, unknowing, innocent, and unaware to the danger that surrounds them. This connection is made because the one thing any (moral) human being would care about over their own self would be their children. Levin uses this connection so that it is very relatable to the audience’s everyday life and the emotional appeal is able to have more influence since it is a scenario any
The attacks convey to the target that violence will continue and retaliatory attacks cannot dissuade the organisation. They give the perception that it would be more beneficial for the target to give in to their demands, rather than hope that they can or eliminate the group in the future (Asthappan 2010, p. 18). This was perhaps the most apparent in the American and French withdrawal from Beirut in 1983. Hezbollah’s truck bombings of the US Marine Barracks and the French Paratroopers’ sleeping quarters lead to the American and French military forces abandoning Lebanon, as demanded by the terrorist organisation (Rosendorff & Sandler 2010, p. 444; Santifort-Jordan & Sandler 2014, p. 981). President Ronald Regan later
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.
WALZER ON SUPREME EMERGENCY Michael Walzer, otherwise a strict adherent to the satisfaction of just in bello conditions in war, especially to the condition of non-combatant immunity, argues that in supreme emergencies, a state actor can infringe upon this principle and directly target enemy civilians’ (SCHWENKENBECHER 2009). What is a supreme emergency? According to Michael Walzer it is: ‘… an ultimate threat to everything decent in our lives, an ideology and a practice of domination so murderous, so degrading even to those who might survive, that the consequences of its final victory were literally beyond calculation, immeasurably awful.’ (SCHWENKENBECHER 2009)Hence, a supreme emergency is an exceptional and threatening situation that collectives
The authors uses the term “vindictive protectiveness” to describe the brutal response by the current movement towards people who question whether or not the movement actually keeps students safe. Lukianoff and Haidt agree that these developments are dangerous for American universities and claim they could write a whole other article outlining that