Torture When it comes to the topic of torture, some of us will readily agree that torture is necessary when dealing with terrorists. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of receiving false information. Whereas some are convinced that torture is the only way to get information out of terrorist who are threatening to put thousands of innocent lives in danger. Others maintain that doing this will violate laws such as the Bill Of Rights which forbids cruel and unusual punishment. My own view, however, is that terrorism aims to spread and increase fear within civil society in order to achieve certain political goals.
Machiavelli’s advice is there for the people who hold power and exposes the truth in human nature. However, although Machiavelli opens up the honesty of humanity; he teaches that there are a lot of people who are not good, so one must also learn to not be good. The thing that is wrong with this is that evil does not combat with evil. Evil can not conquer evil, good conquers. Therefore, The Prince explores the reality of human nature as self-interested and wicked.
In this text by Paul Lauritzen he spoke of ways we can torture a possible enemy of the country in a way that would not strip them of their basic human rights or that would alter their conception of reality, in order to get the information needed from them to save countless lives. Now I know that sounds petrifying, but as soon as you really get into the reading you'll understand why it's utterly captivating. Now let's get down to business, Paul gave many different definitions to dignity, he wanted to discover what dignity is exactly, he said that one of the forms of torture that strip a person of their dignity is when you make their life so horrible that they just don't want to live anymore. Another one was that dignity is the same as autonomy,
Although he disagrees with traditional reasons for taking suicide to be immoral, he nevertheless agrees that suicide is in fact immoral. In his characterization of the “free man” at the end of part of the Ethics, Spinoza argues that a perfect rational being “always acts honestly, not deceptively”. Spinoza reasons that if a perfect rational being misleading, he would do so “from the dictate of reason” but then it would be rational to act in that way, and “men would be better advised to agree only in words, and be contrary to one another in fact”. One problem that this argument raises is conflict between Spinoza’s claim that a perfect rational being would always act honestly and his claim that such a being would never do anything that brought about its own
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.
National Security needs to know that torture only increases the number of terrorists because they want to be able to seek revenge. Torture victims usually tell National Security what they want to hear, this view is not only shared by many people but by John McCain, a victim of torture himself. Not only does National Security not hear the truth but using torture jeopardizes their safety. It removes the shame of torturing prisoners and it creates new enemies. Torture creates fake evidence as well as creating more violent conditions for soldiers in the wars for example wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
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
Contrary to these aspects, Baker views hate speech as a facilitator to potential material consequences, who's utterance alone does not present immediate effects. Accordingly, the responsibility of hate speech’s outcome is exclusively placed on the listener, asserting that the reaction to what is spoken dictates the consequence (Waldron 2012, 166). The listener’s integration of the speaker’s self disclosure is defined by Baker as “mental mediation,” where harm stems from the listener’s understanding. Therefore, those vulnerable to hate speech have the option to respond as a “critic or a victim” (Waldron 2012, 169).
We are told that we are born with basic rights and that we have the freedom to believe in whatever we desire, however, the chains that bind us are morality and justice. People’s opinion of us stops us from having complete freedom. A person with strong morality would feel guilty if they were given the choice to commit an injustice against another, and thus decide not to do so in the first place, even if they are given the opportunity to do what they want with no harm done to the other person. In Plato’s Crito, Socrates only cares about truth, therefore, for him to escape prison would be considered an injustice. He will be breaking the law, confirming his accuser’s statements about him being a criminal despite the fact that their claims are untrue.
Sometimes it is best to understand the law first before obeying it. When one thinks a law is unjust, they will go out of their way to go against it and do something about it. At a certain point, one doesn’t have to act accordingly to what they don’t believe in, but they can’t do whatever pleases them. There has been many controversies involving the act of non violence civil disobedience. Although most feel like breaking an unjust law might be the best solution to what they think is right, in reality, I agree to the fact that people are afraid to face the consequences that are given after their actions.
Should torture be acceptable in our society seems to be the day old question. First, one must know what torture actually is; torture is the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain. Torture is wrong and should not be acceptable in our society because it is ineffective, morally wrong, and it violates the rights of human dignity of the victim. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.” Article 17 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 says, “No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of threat, may be inflicted on a person.
Violence is wrong because it doesn’t fix the real problem it only disguises it. It is also wrong because it may beat the man physically down, but it won’t change how he understands. The last way is through nonviolent resistance. Nonviolent resistance brings the best of acquiescence and of violence. It grabs the nonviolent aspect of acquiescence, but not the conforming.
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.
These are refrain from utilizing the strong version as a part of support of using the weak version and use the strong version as a tool to fight other human biases and shortcomings. The argument for first one is basically to understand that the strong Precautionary Principle is sensibly impotent, and in this way ought to be abandoned for the convincing weak version of the Precautionary Principle. However, Sunstein argues that it might be conceivable to combat other inadequacies in human thinking by offering up the strong version as a way to get people to consider the situations seriously. He concludes by expressing that utilizing the Precautionary Principle practically is a rough method for achieving one 's objectives, and he reaffirms his position that, strictly and sensibly read, the Precautionary Principle will paralyze any plausibility of both activity and also inaction