The Morality Of Torture On The Middle East Today And The War On Terrorism

The War on Terror has produced several different viewpoints on the utilization of torture and its effectiveness as a means to elicit information. A main argument has been supplied that torture is ineffective in its purpose to gather information from the victim. The usefulness of torture has been questioned because prisoners might use false information to elude their torturers, which has occurred in previous cases of torture. It has also been supposed that torture is necessary in order to use the information to save many lives. Torture has been compared to civil disobedience. In addition, the argument has been raised that torture is immoral and inhumane. Lastly, Some say that the acts are not even regarded as torture.

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

In this article, written by Andrew Fiala, the topic of discussion is torture, terrorism, and the lesser evil of arguments. Fiala has many strong statements about torture, and how there are different types used in different situations and it being to excessive. He touches on terrorism of how it is wrong, but he states that the terrorist is closely related to torture. Then he touches on the double-standards that moral standards of people sacrificing themselves to save others. Fiala argues that torture needs to be diminished, then argues that terrorism and torture are closely linked, but they have many differences, and then how the “fat man” analogy is what terrorism can be compared to.

The Deferred Action for Childhood arrivals (DACA) protects eligible young immigrants who came to the United States as children from deportation. It grants young undocumented immigrants a work permit and protection from deportation. Although there has been controversy about keeping this policy, the people protected under DACA contribute to society and American economy, also keeping DACA is about keeping a promise, and it is constitutional. It exists for the good policy for the nation, its citizens, and those children that DACA supports.

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.

“Governments that block the aspirations of their people, that steal or are corrupt, that oppress and torture or that deny freedom of expression and human rights should bear in mind that they will find it increasingly hard to escape the judgment of their own people, or where warranted, the reach of international law” (Hague). Governments can not control the people they govern by blocking them, they work together, they try their best to be fair and just. Sometimes they do not do what is best all the time and make mistakes. 1984 by George Orwell torture is shown to be inhumane because of the Party’s cruel actions towards the people. However, sometimes torture is justified. In modern society, terrorists can hurt and kill people with great ease. Therefore, torture has a place in bringing terrorists to justice. Yet torture can also be misused out of hatred or a desire to control. Torture can be justified if its purpose is to save lives from terrorists; however, the Nazis’ concentration camps and 1984’s torturous brainwashing prove that torture can be used for evil purposes as well.

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.

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. (85)

Throughout history, people around the world are encountered with social structures that may positively shape their lives or may lead to the view of life as a burden. The social structures placed upon us shape the way we view and handle our economical and political values. Global inequalities of wealth and power have increasingly created an abundance of gendered structural violence. These instances can be clearly seen in Arlie Russel Hoschild’s story, Love and Gold, in Doméstica: Immigrant Workers Cleaning and Caring in the Shadows of Affluence, by Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo, in Kevin Bales story, Because She Looks Like a Child, and lastly, in Hosu Kim and Grace

Torture (Latin torquere, “to twist”), in law, infliction of severe bodily pain either as punishment, or to compel a person to confess to a crime, or to give evidence in a judicial proceeding. Among primitive peoples, torture has been used as a means of ordeal and to punish captured enemies. Examination by torture, often called the “question,” has been used in many countries as a judicial method. It involves using instruments to extort evidence from unwilling witnesses.

Since the beginning of time, torture has been used politically and socially to change the tides of civilization. The definition of torture according to Dictionary.com is, “the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.” While this definition fully suits certain parts and certain peoples of the world, it does not or should not fit the United States’ definition in regards to human law. The Constitution and its moral rights have shaped America so that the American military (held to higher standards than any other military in the world) would not torture a person for the pleasure of inflicting pain

If torture is an ethically permissible option in counter-terrorism, under what conditions can the use of torture be justified? If torture is not ethically permissible, why is this the case? Use THREE of the five ethical frameworks from lecture and readings (utilitarian, common good, virtue, rights, fairness) to describe and defend your position. You should also use the readings on the ethics of torture in counter-terrorism from Mayerfeld and Krauthammer in your

With his article “The Case for Torture” Levin has made his readers think over what the differences between the death penalty and torture. Levin provides evidences and asks questions to lead his readers into forming their own opinion on whether torture is totally unacceptable in any situation or not. But it is clear by the end of the article where Levin stands on the topic of

This research paper talks about the controversy of torture in America. Torture is defined as a punishment of severe and intentional pain, either mentally or physically, inflicted on a person, particularly to receive information from him or her (“Defining Torture”). Starting around 530 A.D., the Romans started using torture as a tactic to get statements from people that they claimed they could not get any other way. For the same reason, the French and Italians adopted using torture around the twelfth-century; however, they began to inflict torture on people because their law system required that they must have a confession from the suspect or witnesses in order to punish the person (Green). America adopted similar practices such as the French and Italians did, but the United States government claims that torture has only been used as a way to keep America safe from

Marijuana is a big topic up for discussion in today’s society. Many people want marijuana to be legalized because of the medicinal capabilities it has. However there are people who oppose idea simply because they have grown up believing, and being taught, that marijuana is “bad”. But medical marijuana has the capability to help, and heal, people with serious illnesses so therefore it needs to be legalized.