Torture is mainly seen as morally wrong. The Los Angeles Times wrote about what the readers think about torture. In the article Torture is wrong: Readers agree, even if most Americans might not, discusses the opinions of their readers on how morally wrong torture can be even if it’s to a terrorist. One of the responses on the Los Angeles Times was from Martin Wauson of Westminster saying, “Injuring or killing an informant defeats the purpose of interrogation” (Los Angeles Times). The point of interrogating a terrorist is to gain information on what ever the problem may be.
It may well produce inaccurate information, because while under torture the victim’s main goal is to stop the pain, he or she will say anything to stop the pain regardless of if it’s the truth or not. Because of the knowledge of this, interrogators can never be quite sure if what the victim is saying is the actual truth. He will continue torturing the victim and nothing will ever be solved. History offers no modern examples of the effectiveness of harsh interrogation techniques. There are many other ways of interrogation that are available and more effective.
Finally, after explaining why he disobeys some laws he makes it clear to the clergymen that segregation laws are unjust and sinful. Thus, he strongly believes that the Jim crow law should be disobeyed because they are “morally wrong” (par.
1) Conflicting Duties 1) Preservation of life is on top of the hierarchy of duties list. When duties conflict, then the lesser evil duty should be chosen. According to this book, Hill says that lying is acceptable in a life-and-death situation because you are trying to protect innocent people. 2) Mutual Deceits 2)
Debate According to the dictionary a pacifist is a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable. C.S. Lewis claimed not to be one in The Weight of Glory. He said that "The main contention urged as fact by Pacifists Lewis claimed that humans decide what is good and what is evil by their conscience. But, he argued that a person's conscience can be modified by argument.
Polus is saying that Socrates continues explaining that doing injustice “happens to be the greatest of evils” (469b5). Polus brings power into the conversion because power is something he desires and comprehends. Socrates then portrays a scene of brutal murder that is clearly wrong to illustrate that “having great power is not this: to do what seems good to oneself” (469e7). Finally, Socrates ends this section by claiming “that when someone does those things justly, it is better, but when unjustly worse” (470c). Throughout this section, Socrates makes small individual points that build together to form his main claim that it is better to suffer injustice than commit injustice acts.
One fundamental criticism, and moral dilemma, is that it sanctions an innocent person being punished for the benefit of society. On the other hand, however, Utilitarianism agrees that punishment is to be put into effect only in the event of the violation of a law. Utilitarianism seeks to limit the use of punishment by declaring it justifiable only if it can be shown to foster effectively the good of society. Consequently, the Utilitarian principle is accused of justifying too much. Rawls alludes to a certain institution of punishment referred to as telishment, in which an innocent person is punished in order
According the Third Geneva Convention and the U.N. Covenant they say they believe torture to be "effective". “The codes are based on the hard-headed calculation that by agreeing not to torture non-combatants, nations can reduce the probability of their own non-combatants being tortured." The Geneva Convention and the U.N Covenant is against torture. They are saying that torturing is a insensible. Also they are saying that when someone tortures in their country, there is a higher chance that other people are going to torture.