Moral Justifiability Of Torture Essay

To begin, the US and it’s central intelligence agency, also known as the CIA are torturing captives, and it’s up for debate. The US should allow the CIA to torture its prisoners. It’s a way to get very valuable information from them. The torture techniques leave no marks or traces left behind on the victim. It strikes fear in the to be tortured prisoners so that they make talk before the CIA even lays a finger on them. It is very difficult to get dangerous people to talk, so we use dangerous methods to get them to talk.

My opposition to torture fall under the beliefs of the absolutist Kant, who states that no matter what the circumstance is, something that is wrong will always be wrong (Boothe 2006, 12). Therefore, concerning the issue of torture, in this world or any other world, torture is immoral. In this paper, I will employ the ethical frameworks of virtue, rights, and fairness to argue against torture when viewed from the perspective of the victim, the torturer, and any outside source. Furthermore, I will dismantle the ticking-bomb scenario by deducing the incapability to achieve full certainty deeming these scenarios unrealistic.

Torture can be initiated through causing some form of mental anguish or physical pain, usually in order to gain information from the person being tortured. Torture is usually punishment for a serious crime,but is usually for the purpose of extracting a confession from an accused person. Many wonder nowadays should torture still be used in this day and age. Torture has been around since the times of the Ancient Greeks and is still around today, notoriously used in criminal organizations but also utilized by various governments when dealing with terrorist. Once the torture of Jews at the hands of the Nazis in World War II became knowledge to the public. In the nineteenth century Public opinion changed on the subject of torture, but torture

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. The author believes that the thoughts of enlightened societies are unwise and ascertains that there are situations whereby torture becomes morally mandatory in dealing with terrorists.

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 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.

In Defense of Torture “Because It Is Wrong:” A Meditation on Torture Rules Should Govern Torture, Dershowitz Says

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 Ethical Life, by Russ Shafer-Landau, chapters written by Michael Walzer and Alan Dershowitz express their knowledge and opinions on the topics of terrorism and torture. Is it possible to justify and defend such acts? In the chapter “Terrorism: A Critique of Excuses”, author Michael Walzer shuts down four excuses that attempt to justify terrorism. In the chapter, “Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist Be Tortured?”, Alan Dershowitz defends his theory that it is necessary to torture a terrorist if that means saving the lives of innocent people while protecting their civil liberties and human rights at the same time. Terrorism can never be moral because it violates all “excuses” and torture is an acceptable tactic to save lives.

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.

terrorist after the terrorist plot has been set in motion, but has not yet been fully executed. Even if the authorities are lucky enough to apprehend the suspect before the ticking bomb has been set to detonate, it is improbable that torture would result in the suspect revealing the plot before the bomb goes off. Brecher additionally argues that Dershowitz’ idea of using legalized torture warrants to limit torture would, on the contrary, lead to the abuse of the torture warrant system.

Many have said that they would want nonlethal torture to be used in such cases but “did not want torture to be officially recognized by our legal system.” Similar statements have posited that while “torture might be necessary in a given situation it could never be right.” This approach, that of keeping torture off-the-books, is in direct conflict with the necessity for accountability and transparency in a democracy. A democracy cannot work if the public is kept in the dark. The public must know what is going on in order to approve or disapprove. In a democracy, we want our government to represent us. We don’t want any actions taken with which we disapprove. These decisions cannot be made about actions done in secrecy. Regarding this variance, Dershowitz demands constancy. He states that if an action is necessary, than it should be legalized but if it is not legalized, don’t do

“Brown Note” Myth Busters. Discovery channel. Artarmon 16 Feb. 2005. Television. In this episode they test one way of torture. It was more based on mental resistance as it didn’t inflict physical pain. It shows that one mental health has a lot to do with how effective torture is. Somebody who is used to stress should be able to resist longer than somebody who isn’t.

In this paper I will discuss the issue of torture. More precisely, i will be looking at “The abolition of torture” by Sullivan and “The truth about torture: it’s time to be honest about doing a terrible thing” by Krauthammer. I will be arguing that Sullivan presents a better case than Krauthammer on the issue of whether a liberal democratic community ought to ever resort to torture, because i feel that Sullivan presents strong points and Krauthammer presents weak ones. I will begin by outlining the key points in Krauthammer’s argument, and then outline the points in Sullivan’s argument. I will then continue to outline why Sullivan’s argument are strong to the objection of torture in a liberal democratic community while also consider objections to my

The prohibition against torture is a bedrock principle of international law. Torture, as well as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, is banned at all times, in all places, including in times of war. No national emergency, however dire, ever justifies its use. No one may ever be returned to a place where they would face torture.