Torture: Justified or Unjustified?

In his essay in “The Case for Torture,” Michael Levin offers up entirely possible situations where he wishes to lead the reader to the conclusion that torture is acceptable. The dangerous situations that Michael Levin proposes, in every case, lead the reader to conclude that torture is a reasonable means of saving lives. All the hypothetical situations are posed to have dozens, if not more than dozens killed if we do not get someone to reveal what they know to save the innocent people. If Levin’s position could be reduced to one sentence, it would be: “If life is so valuable that it must be never taken, the lives of innocents must be saved even at the price of hurting the one who endangers them.” (Michael Levin, pg. 607) The terms “lives of innocents” seems very justified, but there are some specifics that Levin fails to quantify.

Levin continues by stating torture is not used as a form of punishment but used for “preventing future evils.” His explanation of how the rights of a single person are necessary and that those rights should be protected from terrorist. If this is held to be true, then who is to say, the rights of the terrorist are any less significant than rights of the people he or she is threatening. It is agreed that drastic measures, in times of extreme circumstance, must be executed to protect life. On the other hand, if one dies as a result of torture, is the torturer any different than the terrorist who was threatening life. When asked Lucas Stanley,

Throughout Levin’s essay he is vague on the definition of torture. He uses the “most excruciating pain possible” to help give the idea of how extreme he wants the torture to be. The only time he gives a hint to any kind of torture is when he refers to the use of “electrodes”. He keeps the reader unaware of the torture methods that are available. As well as he offers no personal experience on the matter. Nor any reliable

Interrogational torture is one of the many tough ethical questions that people debate about in the United States. Is it right or is it wrong? Many believe that the United States does not practice intense interrogational acts such as torture. Many people have fought to abolish any form of torture while many fight to keep some forms of it to help keep the peace. Whether you believe in it or not, torture is and will always be an ethical dilemma that comes up.

Dick Cheney, the former US vice-president, has claimed that waterboarding torture “helped produce the intelligence that allowed us to get Osama bin Laden”. The act of torture to retrieve information from a human being is widely used through the world. The government use of torture during interrogation is ethically justifiable. The use of torture throughout Earth’s history gives evidence supporting torture for interrogation purposes. If you look at different time periods of the world, you will find that torture has been around for a very long time. The use of torture was handled differently in different eras but they all give evidence supporting that torture is ethically justifiable. A few important examples that show evidence

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

In “The Case for Torture”, philosophy professor Michael Levin attempts to defend using torture as a means to save lives is justifiable and necessary. Throughout the article, Levin provides persuasive arguments to support his essay using clever wording and powerful, moving examples. However, the essay consists heavily of pathos, fallacies, and “What if?” situations that single out torture as the only method of resolution, rendering the argument hypothetical, weak, and unreliable for the city of San Jose as a whole community to follow.

Levin states: “Suppose a terrorist has hidden an atomic bomb on Manhattan Island which will detonate at noon on July 4... He is caught at 10 a.m. on the fateful day, but preferring death to failure, won't disclose where the bomb is. What do we do? If we follow due process, wait for his lawyer, arraign him, millions of people will die.” What Levin is trying to convince his readers of is that once people’s lives are threatened, the normal way of doing things will take too long to and people will die. Levin does a good job at convincing his readers that when people are not in danger, they do not consider torture as a way of protecting themselves. Levin also asks if torturing terrorists saves millions of lives is there really any reason not

Torture should be allowed in for the following reasons. First of all, torture gives agents more time to solve cases. If agents need information quickly because of a threat, torture gets the information out much quicker giving the agents more time to respond to the situation. Secondly, many terrorists plots have been foiled. A terrorist plot was foiled by the Bush administration when Khalid Shaikh Muhammed was tortured, saving countless lives. To conclude, torture should be allowed.

Levin argues that torture should be used on terrorist in order to save people from terrorism. He further implies that this is the morally correct thing to do, because it ensures the good of the people. While his argument would be plausible in a utilitarian society, it is formidable within the cultural ideals of America as democratic societies typically tend to obscure techniques that violate natural rights and or ethics. Hence, Levin

Torture is one of the most controversial topics of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. The age of terrorism has forced the topic to be introduced to the Legislative Branch. Now that technology is present in every aspect of life the gruesome interrogations of terrorist organizations are privy to the average Joe. Many people believe that torture is both barbaric and uncivilized reserved for third world countries and fragile regimes. These individuals tend to agree that torture is any action or practice of inflicting sever pain on someone in the version of physical or mental abuse with the desire to degrade or humiliate. However, there are individuals who believe that torture is a necessary evil; even though most third world countries

There are many views or definition of the word “torture”, which is often debated by many individuals. According to “International Rehabilitation Council For Torture Victims” (2005-2012), “torture is an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining information or a confession, punishing him for an act committed” (para. 2). “Torture is anguish of body or mind; something that causes agony or pain; the infliction of intense pain (from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure; or distortion or over

The issue of torture is being very current and it arouses debate between those who are totally against it; those who think that it sometimes can be used for good; and those who are in between. The idea of torture was seen only as something that happened far away in time, and it should not even be considered as an issue of the modern society. Furthermore, torture was seen as a violation of the fundamental human rights, which were protected by different human rights conventions. But then something happened and actually influenced the general opinion about the issue of torture. Criminal attacks nowadays are not very rare. As long as we continue to be threatened from those criminal attacks, this issue will

Torture is a hugely controversial subject in our society today. Torture is defined as an intentional use of pain or abuse to gain an advantage over an individual. According to TheWeeklyStandard, torture is applied to prisoners or detained person to obtain admission of crime or to simply impose pain and suffering as a punishment (Krauthammer). Torture is also used to get information from the suspects by hurting them physically, mentally and emotionally. However, many argue that torture is against human rights and can defeat its purpose. Torture is cruel and inhumane, it can cause more damage to the situation, and it is unconstitutional.

Throughout history, torture was used a method to punish those who broke laws or defied traditional ideals. An example of this would be from medieval Spain when the Spanish Inquisition would torture those who didn’t follow the orthodox Catholic ideology. The methods that were used were outright painful, humiliating, and lethal, but it was often justified at the time. In modern times, torture cannot be justified. Torture is defined, by the United Nations in Article I of the Convention against Torture, as any “act by which severe pain and suffering… is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining information… a confession… [or] punishment for an act” (United Nations). With this definition, one can simply look at the current status of the United States’ so-called enhanced interrogation and justify that it is a method of torture. Any arguments that are in favour of torture are also, inherently, in favour for the violation of inalienable human rights. Torture shouldn’t and mustn't be used for three main arguments: it is brutal, and it is inhumane, and it doesn’t always work. If someone needs information, then it must be acquired through peaceful means.