Do we recoil from torture because it treats a person only as a means to an end? It is a principled view that might account for our rational rejection of torture, but Kant’s Categorical Imperative is too much at variance with Anglo-American norms to explain the instinctive revulsion the practice commonly elicits. (As the death penalty illustrates, note that popularity does not contradict abhorrence.) In his paeans to torture, Dershowitz is merely echoing Bentham and, beyond it, the reigning utilitarianism of our time, which, from conditional welfare to advertising, routinely flouts Kantian ethics. And yet, is there a doubt that the wrongness of torture finds its source, not in a holy book or in the final link of a chain of observations, but deep in humanity’s moral intuition? On this we all
Mahatma Gandhi, the preeminent leader of the Indian independence movement states “You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind.” This is important because torture is brutal on the body and mind. The article “Torture’s Terrible Toll” by John McCain is more convincing then the article “The Case for Torture” by Michael Levin because McCain provides more logical reasoning, he adds his own personal experience of being a captured prisoner during the Vietnam War, and he creates an emotional bond with people around the world.
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).” Some may argue the terrorist is responsible for putting himself in a situation where torture would be the only answer (Mayerfeld 2008). This argument undermines the terrorist’s perspective. Ultimately, the terrorists believe what they are doing is right and have concrete reasoning for their actions (Mayerfeld
While analyzing “The Torture Myth” and “The Case for Torture”, it is very clear to see the type of rhetorical appeals used to persuade the audience. Anne Applebaum, the writer of “The Torture Myth” --in context of the decision of electing a new Attorney General--would argue that torture is very seldomly effective, violates a person’s rights, and should be outlawed due to the irrational need upon which physical torture is used. On the other hand, Michael Levin strongly argues that physical torture is crucial to solving every imminent danger to civilians. Levin claims that if you don’t physically torture someone, you are being weak and want to allow innocent people to die over something that could have been simply done.
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. Marzieh Ghiasi is a female Muslim college student who wrote a rebuttal to Levin 's Case for Torture where she uses logic to deconstruct his argument and prove that torture is not an acceptable practice. Both of their papers are good arguments and have great points to support them, but ultimately, I would say that Levin’s argument on torture being morally acceptable is the better argument. Levin uses many examples and devices to fill his article with Pathos as Ghiasi has a Logos approach but doesn’t have very many devices throughout her article to support her argument.
In this essay, the author suggested that it is not quite black and white to determine if torture is right and wrong. There is space for arguments to determine to what extent torture can be accepted as the right choice of action and to what extent this is not applicable.
What ethical arguments are being made? Torture is okay to use. Torture is wrong. Torture should be okay in some circumstances
Imagine helping your country out of debt, or helping innocent people and save them from years and years of trauma. The history of torture goes all the back to before Christ was born, and yet people still use it to this day like the United States, China, North Korea, and Mexico. From country to country people torture other humans for information and services. The definition is the same worldwide which means to inflict severe pain on another human to force them to say something or provide a service. The topic is so controversial because every human has the same rights as other humans and no human should be put through terrifying torture experiences.Torture does work sometimes, but most of the time it only angers the other person. Which gives them false
In the reading “The Case for Torture” written by Michael Levin, and published on the June 7th, 1982 edition of Newsweek. Levin argues in favor of torture as an acceptable way of obtaining information when innocent lives are at stake. Outlining three separate scenarios devised to make the reader reconsider the stance on torturer in order to protect the interest of those in the western area. The strength of this text is that the absence of reasoning does not strike the reader; he is overcome by Levin’s ability to break ethical decisions down to black and white.
After finding some torture tactics, it helped me research about the negative effects of torture. In his article, “Torture is a Crime”, Curt Goering listed the negative effects of torture. He argues that torture is illegal, ineffective, immoral and makes those around us unsafe. Curt uses ethos in his piece to back up his main argument. For example, he mentions that in 1984, the UN adopted the Convention against torture and it was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1990. In addition, he informs the reader about a CIA Detention and Interrogation Program which was a study that proved interrogation techniques were not effective. This is important because he uses many statistics and poll results to back up his argument. He also mentions a poll that was
If there's one thing we learn from the story, it's that there are a lot of different ways a person can be tortured. Beyond the traditional physical suffering, we also see examples of mind control, brainwashing, and indoctrination as effective methods of torture. O’Brien’s description of power as "a boot stamping on a human face" is misguided, because power is more about influence and authority than victory over resistance. This is the Party’s fatal flaw in 1984. 1984 demonstrates that totalitarianism is a devastating political agenda, because it is necessarily dependent upon fear, classism, and physical torture. Without these elements, the Party would have no
The influence of the media makes people believe everything on television, which tarnishes the credibility of the U.S. government, its military and national security. Communication has been part of human life since the ancient Mesopotamia; it 's what people use to reach anyone and everywhere. Just like humans, communication has evolved throughout the time, from cave drawings to high technology wireless devices. Nowadays, the biggest fraction of communication is what is now called the media; it 's everywhere and on everyone. 24, just like any other television shows, utilize this apparatus to its full extent to gain their expected results; more viewership, and higher ratings. The depiction of torture as the only form of interrogation hurts the
The discussion of torture is a touchy one in regards to its place in the justice system. People struggle to find a place for it between what is morally right and what is realistically necessary. In the state that the world is in today, due to frequent terror attacks, the topic is more crucial and controversial than ever before. In Michael Levin’s “A Case for Torture”, he presents his beliefs on how accommodations can be made for torture in order to uphold the safety and well-being of the world. Levin’s main argument explains that in order to maintain morals, the use of torture must be evaluated on a case-to-case basis. Though a valid idea, his proposal is supported by examples that only make it weaker. Because of this, Levin’s argument lacks
Schiemann, John W. "Interrogational Torture: Or How Good Guys Get Bad Information With Ugly Methods." Political Research Quarterly 65.1 (2012): 3-19. Academic Search Complete. Web. 08 Feb. 2016. This source explains that torture is actually one of the last methods used when they are interrogating someone since many know that it has a very low success rate. If the person is not willing to cooperate, they go down a list. Many people thought to use the top methods as they are not as immoral. Getting to the end of the list thought means they have nothing else to make the person talk which is why they use
There are many interpretations of what torture is and how something can be classified as torture. In “Believe Me It’s Torture” Christopher Hitchens talks about the United States and its various uses of interrogation tactics to get Important information from suspected terrorists. In the article the author often brings up the waterboarding tactic that is often used and how there is a large controversy over whether it is in fact torture or if it is just simply harmless. The article states, “waterboarding was something that Americans did to other Americans, it was inflicted upon and endured by the Special Forces in a form of training called S.E.R.E (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) so that they could build up a resistance to it so that they