I do not believe in torture and consider it something barbaric and inhuman. Therefore I would say that torture is never acceptable under any circumstances, and regardless of what the consequences might be. Torture and civilization do not mix because the latter highly emphasizes the value of human beings as it is something intrinsic. Democracy also does not mix with torture because democratic societies believe in human rights and equality. My point is that the end does not justify the means when it comes to the torture of a human being.
September 11, 2001 was a turning point in not only the history of the United States but also the history of the world. It has put the commitment of the civilized world with human rights into test. After the occurrence of fatal attack, there were loud voices that tried to legalize torture as an acceptable means in interrogating suspects. Torture can be defined as, “the officially sanctioned infliction of intense suffering, aimed at forcing someone to do or say something against his or her will.” (Rodley, N.S. ‘The Treatment of Prisoners Under International Law’ (2nd edition) (Oxford University Press, 2000(. Although I have to admit that torture has been used on large-scale in different parts of the world to obtain confessions from suspects, morally speaking, torture is not an acceptable procedure under any circumstances.
In this essay, I shall shed light on two arguments to answer a very critical question, is torture ever acceptable? I will weigh two points of view regarding this argument, the consequentialists and the deontologists. Then decide if I still stand on my position or are there truly exceptions to torture.
Suppose that some authorities know for sure that someone positively knows the location of a bomb that will explode to kill tens of people and that person refuses to voluntarily identify the place of the bomb, would it be acceptable to torture that person to extract information and save the lives of innocent...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document