At some point everyone has heard of torture. It could have been in a movie or on the news, but they have heard of it. In this day and age, people would like to have believed it was all behind us in the past. Then 9/11 happened, everyone’s lives were changed with one simple act of cruelty. Before 9/11 hit the U.S. in a wave of pain, panic, and anger, our viewpoints on torture would probably have been less likely that it should be allowed. The decision to torture people who are suspected of being part of terrorist groups has always been decided by the government, for the simple reason that it is required to keep us safe from harm. Some people believe that torture is cruel, unsightly and just inhumane. On the other hand there are people who see it the same way but also believe it could be necessary in extreme circumstances. We’re going to look at two different points of torture: When it is acceptable and when it is not acceptable.…
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…
If torture is used in retaliation and as an “eye to eye” concept, then torture would be an unethical way of punishing someone (Guidebook). For this example, I would argue that torture is being used to provide the members with the realization for their actions, so torture is an unethical way of punishment. Also, torture is not a replacement for the death penalty, so it is not saving an individual’s life because in the guidebook it states that if “torture is vengeful and not being used to protect innocent lives, then it is not technically a moral reason for punishing someone” (Guidebook). Without protecting innocent lives, torture cannot be considered an ethical reason for punishing someone, so I would argue that the type of punishment that should be used is an elongated amount of jail time. Incarceration meets all the requirements for being a moral type of punishment because it doesn't cause mental harm that torture would and incarcerating the members would not be a retaliating…
Is the intentional pain that an individual experiences justified by the possibility of preserving the lives of many? Torture is the used as a weapon, but in reality does it work? The purpose of this essay is to identify what the motives are for using torture, the effectiveness of torture, and important issues or flaws with the entire process of torture.…
Torture is the act of inflicting physical and psychological pain. The three main purposes that Democratic governments use torture are to intimidate, to coerce false confessions, and to gather accurate security information. Torture is not only a method that has been used in countries notorious for corrupt government dictatorships such as Russia, Japan, and Germany but has also been prevalent in democracies. The use of torture in democracy is a shame, not only do secret CIA kidnappings, and the indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay go against the basic elements of a democracy, it has also been proven to be ineffective or less effective than traditional intelligence gathering, and it creates a slippery slope effect.…
“To torture or not to torture” – the main topic in debate between Charles Krauthammer and Andrew Sullivan is whether torture should be permissible under certain circumstances or never at all. The debate of torture between Krauthammer and Sullivan began three years after the Bush administration defined “torture” in the narrowest terms – the permitted coercive, physical abuse of enemy combatants if the military necessity demands it. (317) Krauthammer discusses extreme situations that make the use of torture seem less morally unethical and almost acceptable; however, his examples are just hypothetical situations. When I weigh his scenarios against reality and think about how much torture can really affect a person’s life, Krauthammer’s make-believe stories have no weight and do not sway my opinion one bit. On the other hand, Sullivan makes a strong point that I completely agree with. We are all humans, but allowing torture to be permissible would only lead to people treating others in a manner less than any human would ever deserve.…
Dr. Michael Levin is a philosophy professor at the City University of New York. His areas of research interest include publications on metaphysics, epistemology, race, homosexuality, animal rights, the philosophy of archeology, the philosophy of logic, philosophy of language, and the philosophy of science. In his article "The Case for Torture” published by Newsweek in 1982, Michael Levin is defending the use of torture as being necessary and justifiably in some extreme cases in order to preserve the greater good of human society. In connection with this he is analyzing the problematic issue of the usage of torture towards terrorists. In his opinion this should be a topic to be taken more and more into consideration also by the Western democracies, as such kind of acts of terrorism will happen even with a more frequency in the future.…
In “The Truth about Torture,” Charles Krauthammer critically analyzes the John McCain, an individual with tremendous moral influence who was tortured by the North Vietnamese, amendment. This amendment would prohibit all forms of torture from being executed on war prisoners of America. In response, Krauthammer states that in certain scenarios, torture is not “just permissible, but also morally required.” He divides the war prisoners into the following three classifications: ordinary soldiers arrested on the battlefield, captured terrorists, and finally, terrorists who possess information. With regards to the ordinary soldiers, McCain’s amendment is justified because although these war prisoners are on the opposite side of the conflict, they are nonetheless lawful fighters who committed no crime. On the contrary, Krauthammer believes that the terrorists are not worthy of the same protection and privileges since they intend to harm innocent citizens.…
We all have heard stories about a terrorist attack, plane hijacking, kidnapping and many other barbaric acts conducted by many known and unknown groups every now and then. As a result of these types of activities tens of thousands of innocent lives have been lost which also left many injured. The obvious question after this would be if there was anything that could have been done to prevent these activities and, possibly save those lives. In “The Case for Torture” Michael Levin is focusing on torture as a possible solution. He is claiming the use of torture not as a punishment but, an acceptable measure for preventing future evil and, acquiring valuable information in extreme situations. It is because millions of innocent lives that are in danger will outweigh the maximum excruciating possible pain for a person convicted guilty. In all of his examples he is showing torture as the only possible…
In light of the recent events such as the War on Terrorism and the war in Iraq, torture has become a topic of close consideration. Torture is sometimes used when a person who is believed to have information about a possible harmful event or information about an illegal organization, is then inflicted with pain by members of the opposing side with a series of different physical and mental distresses, in hope of forcing the person to give over desired information. Torture has often been used during times of war and political unrest, and in situations where the information could protect the society from danger. I believe that torture is never an…
Torture threatens to overturn our principles and undermine our integrity if we are not careful. I don’t think that torture should be completely out of the question when dealing with extreme scenarios, but it is important for any leader to completely…
Torture is not only morally wrong but it is also against the law. In the 3rd and 4th Article of universal human rights at the Geneva conventions torture was outlawed. The reason torture is outlawed is simple, it hurts human beings leaving them hopeless for recovery.…
The act of legalizing torture has been a debate amongst people for a long time. Most people feel discomfort imagining someone being tortured, whether under any circumstance, however, there are those who feel that torture can be beneficial to the government, in the most extreme cases, seeking information. For example, after the events of 9/11, where al Qaeda terrorists hijacked commercial airplanes and used as weapons of the Pentagon and World Trade Centers, the debate on whether or not “to torture captured terrorists to prevent civilian or military casualties has taken a great urgency.” Using torture, in this kind of extreme case, is what…
The format of the introduction of Levin's essay is somewhat unusual. It begins with a few powerful statements, but the very first statement violates a rule of literature, inclusion of an unsupported fact. Levin says," It is generally assumed that torture is impermissible, a throwback to a more brutal age." Not only is the statement a generalization, he is saying that something is generally assumed, but he does not say whom it is assumed by. So who generally assumes it? It seems it is more of a mistake of wording because he is the one who is assuming that generally people think torture is wrong, therefore the essay should read that way because the last thing one should do is start off on the wrong foot.…
Nevertheless, under any circumstance it should not be allowed, other ways must be found because decisions like legalising torture, and in a civilized society is just unheard of; we do not need to legalise torture to combat terrorism, because terrorism cannot hurt us…