Is Torture Morally Wrong?

In contrast, some individuals may debate that torture and even some more minuscule forms of torture can be beneficial to obtaining the information needed. It is debated that torture has been used in a large portion of political systems in history, and that the “degree” of torture is a significant component when deciphering right vs. wrong. Moher argues that in a political system where torture is justifiable and legal, the torture used would be less extreme than what it is today (Moher, 2013). It is reasoned that different degrees of torture are more acceptable than others, in that some are less psychologically and physically harming. A

Torture is something that is known as wrong internationally. Torture is “deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting on the orders of authority, to force a person to yield information, to confess, or any other reason” (World Medical Association, 1975, pg.1). There is a general consensus that there is a right to be free from any kind of torture as it can be found in many different human rights treaties around the world. The treaties show that all of the thoughts about torture are pointing away from the right to torture someone no matter what the case

Since the terror attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, the debate of torture has increased significantly. The torture argument has become a defining component of the moral state of a country and how they approach certain situations. I will be exploring the ideas of Alan M. Dershowitz, who argues for a “torture warrant,” and Jeremy Waldron who draws the line at torture completely. Both make compelling arguments; however, the legalization of torture, I believe would result in the development of a more violent and less forgiving society.

The use of torture to obtain information from a person is a practice that goes back thousands of years. In today’s society most individuals believe the practice of torture is a barbaric concept with no place in civilized society. But a question has arisen in the past few decades. Is it ever justifiable to torture a person in order to say the lives of other people? Since the events of September 11th, 2001, Americans have debated this question and many articles have been written on the subject. In their respective articles, Henry Porter and Seumas Miller, take opposite sides of the argument. Porter explains that torture is never an option, while Miller describes how torture is justified in certain situations.

Torture is not a new ethical dilemma, because torture has been practiced throughout human history and in different cultures. Now, however, the Geneva Convention and other modern norms suggest that human beings should not resort to using torture. Torture is becoming taboo as a method of intelligence gathering, which is why the methods used during the Iraq war were decried. However, the ethical case can be made for torture. If torturing one human being leads to information that could save the lives of a thousand, torture suddenly seems like a sensible method. This is a utilitarian perspective on torture, which many people find palatable. However, there are problems with this method of thinking about torture. The state-sanctioned use of torture creates a normative framework in which torture becomes acceptable. Torture sends the wrong message about what a free, open, and enlightened society should be. Even if torture is only acceptable in extreme circumstances, as with a suspect who might know something about an impending terrorist attack, who decides when and what type of torture should be used? There is too much potential for abuse of the moral loophole with regards to torture. If the United States hopes to be a role model, then torture cannot fit into its intelligence methods.

In this paper, I will begin by outlining Shue’s argument that while there may be some rare circumstances in which torture would be morally permissible, laws against torture should not be less severe, as torture does not satisfy the constraint of possible compliance (CPC), and other moral considerations. I will argue that since the cessation of torture cannot be guaranteed by the torturer, interrogational torture does not satisfy the CPC. Then, I will consider the objection that in practice, torture systems can ascertain the compliance needed by the victim, and can ensure this compliance is within the victim’s power. I will conclude by countering this point, as systems of torture have proven to be unreliable, and generally, unnecessary.

Since the tragic incident that occurred September 11, 2001 innocent and guilty prisoners have been captured by Americans and are being tortured. The camps and prisons they’re being held at are located in Guantanamo Bay. The Taliban and al Qaeda are the terrorist groups involved. This is important because America is torturing innocent people. Torturing terrorists is ineffective because it’s a violation of human rights, false information is given under pressure, and it gains enemies through abusive tactics.

Consider the following situation: You are an army officer who has just captured an enemy soldier who knows where a secret time bomb has been planted. Unless defused, the bomb will explode, killing thousands of people. Would it be morally permissible to torture them to get him to reveal the bomb’s location? Discuss this problem in light of both Utilitarian and Kantian moral theories and present arguments from both moral perspectives for why torture is morally wrong.

Torture is one of the most provocative topics within modern day government and interrogation practices. While the United States constitution’s eighth amendment states that the use of cruel and unusual punishment is a violation, there have been instances whether you look at the Civil Rights era or post-September 11, 2001. Torture has been unfortunately remained a fairly common practice. This book delves into the perspectives of many authors on their views of torture.

In this new day and age torture is a popular topic of controversial arguments on whether it should be permitted in certain circumstances and its efficiency. In my paper, a logical argument against torture will be presented as well as arguments of from those who support the use of torture. In this paper, I will ultimately defend the position against the use of torture because it not only inefficient, but it is ineffective in some cases

When is torture justified? Scholars in social psychology, sociology, history, and even literature whose ideas would help clarify the use of dehumanization. Torture and dehumanization dates back centuries along the colonial era. George J Annas’ Post-9/11 Torture at CIA “Black Sites”- Physicians and Lawyers Working Together” uncovers the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report and it’s hidden injustice. Charles B. Strozier’s “Torture, War, and the Culture of Fear After 9/11” insist that torture has its tactical benefits, however it is inhumane and ethically wrong. "Trump Says 'Torture Works,' Backs Waterboarding and 'Much Worse” by Johnson Jenna reports on Trump and his support of torture. "Torture as an Absolute Wrong” by Jacob Sullum suggest

You awaken in a dark room, with no recollection on how you got their. You realize that you sitting across from a few men, with a table separating from you. Next to the men you see a bucket filled with water a rag. You are blinded by a bright white light and one of the men bangs on the table and says, “We know you are with terrorists. So where are they hiding?” You answer almost immediately saying that you’re not a terrorist and have no idea. Then men ask again and you give the same answer. The men get furious and drag you out of the chair and force you to lie down on the table, tying you to it. They ask one more time, “where are the others?” You respond with the same answer as before, “I don’t know.” The men then put the rag on your face and

Torture has been a long standing controversy which seems to been coming up more frequently nowadays among politicians and media alike. There has always been the key argument if a man’s life is justifiably bad enough to torture and hurt, to get necessary information from. Since the beginning of our foundation torture was made a marque laws requiring the government and states alike from using, “cruel and unusual punishments” on any American prisoners (“FindLaw”). However in 2006 slight adjustments to this law were put in effect to create opportunities for getting information out of foreign captives (“FindLaw”). These prisoners were taken from the standard US judicial review and instead put under the terms of habeas corpus. This allowed the US

Kate, a shy girl, goes to school in California. She goes to a big school with class sizes around 500 students which makes it easy for her not to be noticed. She likes it that way though. As a young child, she was always the outcast. Moving from school to school has always made it hard for Kate to make friends. Sad and scared, imagine what happens when she moves to her new school in California her sophomore year and will be staying until graduation. Kate never reached out to anyone because she knew she would be leaving the following year and never see them again. It was close to the end of her junior year when people started to notice Kate, and how she dressed different. The kids at the school would laugh and make fun of her when they saw her

In regards to a bill that was introduced to Congress forbidding the use of tactics defined by torture; The United States government must consider all of the ethical options and possibilities they have. It is known across the world that torture is morally unethical. It is also known that allowing innocent civilians to be murdered is against every moral we, as humans possess. As morally just people we have to find the exceptions in which we are willing to use torture in countering terrorism. As leaders of the free world our government has the responsibility to do everything in their power to protect the innocents of the world and gain the needed information to do so. Winning this war on terror will occasionally come at a high cost, leaving no choice other