Persuasive Essay: Should We Use Torture?

When it comes to the topic of torture, most of us will readily agree that torturing someone in order to get information is not the answer. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of how guilty a person is, and what should be done in the case of a bombing. On the one hand, people argue that torture is unconstitutional and should not be practiced because it questions a person’s morality and what they are willing to do in order to get results. On the other hand, however, others argue that we should allow torture because it is more just than allowing thousands of innocents to die because we didn’t want to question a single person. I have mixed feelings on the topic. While I recognize that our actions may be for the greater good, we cannot allow ourselves to lose our morality because of it. I do not believe that a person should be tortured for information unless it is under specific circumstances. What I mean by this is that people should not torture someone unless that person is obviously guilty or it is
We are put under a time crunch that affects how we deal with situations. Michael Levin wrote in his essay “The Case for Torture” that we should use torture because it is better to torture one person who is obviously guilty. This would help insure that thousands of lives could be saved at the expense of just one or a few people. In a brief statement about terrorist’s rights, Levin says “torture is barbaric? Mass murder is more barbaric” (532). In this simple statement, Levin argues that torturing is the lesser of two evils. And it is true. Would we rather sacrifice many lives for one that is potentially guilty? Most would say no. In fact, if we allow torture to become legal, we might get results that many have not thought of. If torture was made legal, it could potentially intimidate future terrorists into thinking twice about their plans. Still, nothing is for