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.
And I accept that certain arguments – like the direct incitement of violence – should indeed be unlawful. But the category ‘hate speech’ has come to function quite differently from prohibitions on incitement to violence. It has become a means of rebranding obnoxious political arguments as immoral and so beyond the boundaries of accepted reasonable debate. It makes certain sentiments illegitimate, thereby disenfranchising those who hold such views”. As long as the speech is not promoting violence, or is not one of the types of speeches that are not protected by the first amendment, then there’s no reason for it not to be heard and be debated with the
Those opposed to utilitarianism proposes restitution for crime victims and therapies for criminals. From the apparent inefficiency of the utilitarian approach to fighting crime, its critics assert that it is based on false beliefs (Hooker, 2011). They claim utilitarianism-based punishment is not only useless but also unjustifiable and cannot be
Accordingly, then, while the scope was much larger, that does not necessarily make 9/11 an act of war. Contending that what happened was rather murder, Lincoln supports Hauerwas and deemed it immoral for Bush to have treated it as an act of war. Therefore, we can see how the emphasis on heroism to fight this demonic evil can actually work against people in many ways as it causes this overreaction. Ultimately, we are left to wonder whether war, that subsequently means America would not have the time to worry about the social balance of its nation, or lack thereof, justifies the excuse of fighting for the heroism shown by the responders that sacrificed their lives for
The idea of public embarrassment or shaming has been a way to cause a lasting impact on a person who has done something wrong, so that he will be less likely to do it again. From the Puritan days back in the late 16th century to the present day, public shaming has always seemed to be a way to punish people who have done something that is not socially acceptable. Public shaming can be a very strong form of punishment and can be immoral depending on how it is done. Our Constitution, more specifically the 8th amendment, forbids punishments that are or can be labeled as cruel and unusual, so as long as public shaming has certain restraints then it is acceptable and can be more effective than incarceration. Public shaming is when a person is humiliated in public instead of receiving jail time.
It gives easier contextual duty due to relaxed secretive terrorism information. The theory on the other hand is criticized on the basis that it does not tell us about internal working of terrorist organization i.e. it does not sufficiently explain on the determination preferences of the group. b) Organizational
Torture creates fake evidence as well as creating more violent conditions for soldiers in the wars for example wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The methods used for torture are so inhumane that they cannot be tolerated. For those reasons and countless others, I believe that torture is not necessary for national security. The public believes that National Security uses torture to save the lives of many innocent people, and they also believe that it is temporary pain which is not true. Being tortured becomes psychological a victim of torture will never forget what they might have gone through especially if they were innocent.
I don’t think surveys should be used in an argumentative article about violence or gun control laws. The other problem with comparing these sets of data with one another were the variance in culture, urban structure, and government structure that these two nations have with one another. The two nations also have differing definitions of “violent” crimes. These are simply logical fallacies that should eliminate this author’s sources from the argument of the article. A more effective form of arguing comparative data on violent crimes may have been from police or official records comparing states that have more or less strict gun control laws.
The Treason Clause is considered a forgotten constitutional law in the United States. The Treason Clause complicates both liberal and conservative positions. Firstly, the Treason Clause explicitly states that individuals are capable of engaging in warlike actions against it; secondly, the Treason Clause again states exactly the opposite persons who levy war against the United States are entitled to specific procedural protections (The Forgotten Constitutional Law of Treason, 2006). Whoever is subjected to treason prosecution under the constitutional law must be tried in an open civilian court and may not be detained by the military as an enemy. In the 21st century this rule of law may be forgotten, however, was familiar to the lawyer during
It is made even more disturbing upon recognizing that these biases are not, as is often believed, seen only in consciously racist individuals, but even in people who believe themselves to be neutral and objective. It would be simplistic to pin police brutality and racial violence on racist actors - that would imply that institutional racism could be remedied by removing such officials from the system. However, acknowledging these ingrained biases and understanding their impact is crucial to recognizing that the system is itself inherently biased, and that a neutral and objective institution of law enforcement can only be created when the emphasis is placed not on racists, but on the construct of racism itself. Ingrained racial biases clearly impede rational decision-making
Many of us remember the events of 9/11, witnessing terrorism on our doorstep. Our carefree world had changed in an instant on that day. Terrorism on our turf demonstrated how vulnerable we are quickly reminding us that we are not as indestructible as we may have previously thought. Terrorism comes in many forms, from a single person wishing to make a political statement or religious groups who wish to spread fear in order to attain ideological goals (Haddow, Bullock, & Coppola, 2014). The targets of the attacks that day were specific to the terrorist but gave us insight as to the vulnerability many of our critical infrastructures are to the terrorism.
Therefore, people may see going against an unjust law as something to avoid because of the aftereffect they will be having to face. Furthermore, It is right to oppose something that is unjust. Individuals should do what they best believe is right in their opinions but laws shouldn’t be fully subjected by the people only or else it may lead to future conflicts and misleading mistakes. Overall, by desired changes, it causes destructive tension for
Even though this type of an attack is certainly horrific and all efforts should be made to prevent such attacks in the future, another more perfidious and incremental threat to the US is on the rise- domestic terrorism. Despite the fact that the legal distinction of domestic terrorism may or may not be applied based on legal or perhaps even political motivations, the carnage that domestic terrorism can unleash upon the US is formidable. Domestic terrorism comes in any forms and is driven by many different ideologies. The domestic terrorist can desire the destruction of the US, the elimination of certain populations of Americans based on the color of their skin or the god they choose to worship, or they may wish to overthrow the government and establish their own version of utopia. The aforementioned examples are of course not an exhaustive list, and there may be individuals or groups that are as yet unknown.