Free Essay

Is Torture Justified?

In: Social Issues

Submitted By mrahmad
Words 2644
Pages 11
Humanity always tried to fix its standards according to different lifestyles. So, abiding by a specific lifestyle imposes certain conditions on humans. In this paper, I will be tackling the topic of torture and how modern civilizations cannot cope with such an idea so disastrous and humiliating to mankind. Justifying the act of torture cannot resemble but an annoying image of humanity. In what’s below, I will argue with and against the practice of torture and will come to a conclusion that no matter what, torture will always reflect negatively on the society as the only way of justifying it is through perfect knowledge of the consequences that no one knows but God. I also considered the scenario of ticket- time bomb because it is considered to be the heaviest argument that justifies torture. So, let’s see how torture isn’t justified.
One night, I went into my house and saw a man, on TV, beating a defenceless tied person. The man was actually beating the guy and enjoying the extreme pain he’s suffering from. He even cut the guy’s feet with a butcher’s knife. My whole family was watching the movie. My dad seemed to enjoy the movie. My brother was just shouting for the man and encouraging him to beat the guy further. My mom had no reaction towards what’s happening. And still my sister who looked really annoyed and demanded to change the channel over and over. This gives rise to the question of whether torture should be accepted or not. And does accepting torture imply that it is justified?
The movie, called “Hostel”, turned out to be talking about a group of Man hunters. It talks about three men in Amsterdam who were encouraged by a stranger, who showed them images of hot women, to visit Hostel known as “Paradise of Sex on Earth”. As they reach Slovakia, and Hostel in particular, they meet gorgeous girls. However, they come to realize that they have been sold to brutal Man Hunters when it was pretty late. They have fallen victims to a kidnapping company which sells people to wealthy men so that they can torture and even murder them. The movie shows explicitly horrible scenes of torture and people suffering extreme pain. Watching such a movie opens up the conversation to a pondering debate of why some people have it in their interests to torture others or seeing them being tortured. In the movie, wealthy people paid millions of dollars to buy a person that they can control, torture and murder. Is it worth it? And are their actions morally justified?
From this comes the definition of torture as the act of causing harm, psychologically or physically, to others intentionally for a certain purpose. Some people refer to torture as “the dark side of mankind” as human beings will to cause extreme pain to other human beings. When it comes to the question of justifying it, one must rely on the purpose as well as the consequences. Some people aim behind torturing at satisfying their desires and achieving the pleasure of controlling others and having the Manpower on others. In fact, these people hope to regain superiority over others due to psychological problems they’re going through and breakdowns in their lives. So, torture is nothing but a means of retrieving dominance. Believe it or not such people achieve satisfaction from merciless actions of humiliation. In this situation, torturers behave indifferently towards the victims in which case the torture is not justified. In some other situations, people’s objective behind torture is to save other people’s lives in which case the justification of torture becomes debateable and argued upon.
Some people see that the acceptance of torture is directly related to human nature because it might be that it is in human’s reflex that he or she accepts or rejects torture. But the question remains whether it is justified or not?
Well, torture sometimes is categorized as means of punishment. For example, when someone is imprisoned, he is punished for the aim of protecting people outside the jail from his/her will to commit further harm to the community as a whole. So, this applies for the case of torture which is nothing but a method of punishment as suggested. One can defend this argument of accepting torture by saying that terrorists and criminals deserve such a severe and harsh punishment for the horrible disasters and misery they’ve caused. Here comes the theory of proportionality that the degree of punishment is directly dependent on the amount of sufferings that terrorists imposed. It is unfair that the criminal is punished in a weight that is smaller and incomparable to the agony he/she caused to others. For example, Gordon Stewart Northcott, a serial killer, whose case caught attention during the period 1928-1932 in Los Angeles, murdered more than 20 young children on a chicken ranch in a town known today as Mira Loma in Riverside Country in California. The murderer Gordon Northcott got arrested, imprisoned for two years, and then executed. I think that he deserved to be extremely tortured as he murdered innocent children for no reason and caused them extreme pain. In addition, he caused misery for all the murdered children’s parents. So, Gordon deserved greater punishment (i.e. extreme torture) because such a person with no mercy should be equally treated with no mercy. In this case, torturing such a person is reasonable and thus justified. In opposition, one may argue that people have mercy and sympathy whatever the circumstances are. For this reason, one must agree that all forms of cruel and odd punishments must be abandoned and forbidden. This is justified by the fact that if all people will to torture other people who caused them harm, the world would be a disaster and humanity would turn to a catastrophe as everyone is running for his/her life. So, punishments must have some limits, such as life imprisonment and capital punishment, no more. Moreover, the theory of proportionality is relative. Everyone has his own way of weighing sufferings versus punishments. From here, one comes to a conclusion that torture, as means of punishment and under the theory of proportionality, is not justified and that the arguments of defending torture fail.
Some people argue for torture and say: “Torture is justified if it saves lives.” Why shall people not justify torture if it defends their rights, protects their lives and preserves their dignities? For example, a direct reaction for a policeman who sees that a man is shooting at innocent people is to shoot him. In this case, the policeman’s purpose is to protect innocent lives and the consequences of his shooting is saving many innocent lives that the shooter would have killed. The policeman doesn’t give any weigh to the shooter’s dignity and tortured him because the shooter himself doesn’t take others’ lives and rights of living into consideration. Another interesting example in this case is the ticking-time bomb where thousands of lives could be saved. Defenders of torture often rely on this argument to justify torture. Well, if you suspect a person who knows the place and the time that a bomb is going to explode causing the death of thousands and even millions of people, you should torture that person until he tells you all the information about the bomb so that you can prevent the explosion from taking place. The consequences of torture in this scenario is saving lives and protecting thousands of people. So, torturing the person is considered ethical in the ticking-time bomb instance. Many philosophers agree that torture is always illegal but consider the case of ticking-time bomb as an exception and even a low probability of it occurring must justify torture. People, therefore, must accept torturing a person and saving millions of lives in return.
Let us emphasize on this scenario as it is considered to be the strongest and heaviest argument for justifying torture. Thus, the consequent ideas will rely on the ticking-time bomb concern.
Imagine you have a prison filled with detainees. One of them, person Y, has had a long history of associations with recent bombings. A bomb is suspected of being placed in the middle of a city centre bustling with thousands of civilians. The government scared of history repeating itself, summons terrorist Y. She puts him in an isolated room. Question after question, the terrorist refuses to answer. Is torture justified in this particular instance?
Well if we appeal to our instincts, the answer seems an obvious YES. First and foremost, his notorious history and his lack of regard for our lives, seems to lesson our appeal to him as a regular respectable human who deserves dignity and respect. But how much are we exactly allowed to torture him? Suppose that the terrorist does not respond to any physical pressure. Say the only way of getting him to say anything useful is by getting in his mother or family. Maybe raping his daughter in front of him might make him speak.
Now here lies the confusion. And this is what exactly we should seek to explain if we are to establish whether torture is to be justified. The equality as it is stated now “torture one saves a million “’ sounds very tempting but to what extent is it true? Let us study this scenario.
First the government does not know if there really is a bomb. There is a big possibility there might be no bomb. Remember it is just a rumour. So, torturing such a person in this case is not justified until you know the absolute consequences behind the act of torture. And of course no one knows the consequences in this case.
Second even if there is a bomb, how many lives are at stake, is it still worth torturing if the bombing will kill only one. Here, you are torturing one life for the sake of another one life. This gives rise to the argument that all human lives must be treated equally without any distinction. Why shall we torture one life to save another one life? What makes this life so special that you torture a person to save it?
Torture by its nature does not provide reliable results. Under torture the strong resist and the weak say anything to stop the pain. So, does torture guide you or rather confuse you? Since you cannot know absolute truth, you will never know whether the person under torture is telling the truth or not. Maybe the person intentionally tells lies to confuse you as some sort of revenge towards the torturer.
It is also impossible to know which terrorist exactly is the one responsible in any sort of bombing. So, saving people from the explosion may require torturing so many suspects in which case the torturer is unjust towards many of the suspects who have no information about the bomb. There is a big chance that torture will be unfair in so many cases and it is wrong to treat people with unfairness. It would also be a disaster if the person under suspicion has no information about the bomb because in such a case the community is just harming the suspected person and causing him harm depending on basis that have no stable grounds. The case is just worse when torture is not only restricted to suspects but probably their family and direct friends.
Of course, making a pressure on suspects by raping a member of their family is totally unethical. No matter what the consequences are, no one has the right to violate others’ dignities.
Now, the equality reduces itself to the following, torturing many (many of whom are innocent themselves) with the possibility of saving some people vulnerable to the bomb explosion. It does not seem as tempting as it once sounded. As long as seeking the perfect information is impossible, one cannot torture others under the assumption of suspicion.
If our aim is to reduce everyone’s suffering then consequentialists’ analysis will clearly fail the test. It has been shown in many instances that terrorism and torture do not yield results. It just causes further harm with no positively leading results and consequences. You can never build an assumption of X happening as long as you’re only suspecting. Moreover, no one will ever know the truth because only God knows what the consequences of what we do are. So, in my opinion, ticking-time bomb fails as it is built upon assumptions not certainties. That’s why philosophers say that ticking-time bomb is not based on certainties but on possibilities and assumptions.
Some people argue that torture is always wrong and no matter what the good consequences are, it is improper to break moral beliefs just to achieve good consequences. ”The ends cannot justify the means.” However, “cruelty justifies cruelty” because the use of time bomb becomes justified as long as government, for instance, is causing harm to such citizens through torture. Nevertheless, one really cannot depend on information given by a person who is suffering from extreme pain out of torture because this person would say anything that would stop this pain. This gives rise to the issue of utilitarianism. Assuming that lives could be saved behind torturing the suspected person, torture is justified as long as the consequences of this action is saving millions of lives and thus reflecting an overall happiness on the society. No matter whether torture is morally right or wrong, one must practice it as its consequences may reflect positively on the society. However, certain restrictions must be set from which utilitarian consequences could be obtained through certain means within the moral boundaries.
Another argument defending torture and with which I strongly disagree is: “Torture satisfies some people’s needs and no matter what the moral boundaries are, no one must give up anything that causes him/her pleasure even torture.” The concentration and extermination camp in Auschwitz, run by the Nazis, describes how humans could have no sympathy to murder “about four million people” by torturing them. Most of the “dead” were Jews. “They were burned naked in gas chambers and even Nazis have done sterilization experiments on women prisoners.” How can torture be justified in that case? Well, some people defend it as long as it is a reflection of Prejudice. Actually, a person with prejudice cannot survive without his belief. Nazis wanted superiority and wanted dominance over other humans. This gives rise to racial discrimination as Nazis believed that no one except their race should have the power of controlling Mankind. No matter what, this doesn’t justify torture because no one except God can control humanity as a whole. Only God has the “power”. Moreover, this concentration camp nowadays is considered to be absolutely against human rights. It shows the wrong and dark image of charity and civilization.
To sum up, torture is to be forbidden and abandoned, because one comes to a conclusion that humans will get no where behind torture. As we saw, all arguments defending torture failed under some circumstance and as long as we are not certain about the consequences of torture, which is always the case, one must not practice torture. In these days, where civilization are evolving towards protecting human rights and forming peace bonds, such unethical practices should be banned. U.N is taking torture argument into consideration in order to build a bedrock on which humanity can rely when dealing with harsh and disastrous cases especially the case of Israeli and Palestinians that have to come to an end. Palestinians can no more handle psychological and physical torture. They have the right to live in peace. Torture has to be banned by imposing punishments on governments that are still practicing torture even in cases where it’s not worth it.

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Why Is Torture Ever Justified?

...Question such as “Is torture ever justified in effort to prevent massive harm or the lost of lives?” For me, I do think that torture is justified. I clearly know that torturing is not good and it violate human rights and human dignity. However, I still think torture give a lot of benefit to leaders during their time in need. The reason why I think torture is justified is because torturing people do sometimes bring out good result during the interrogation. Not only do I believe in torture is needed in some situation, but the study also proof that torture bring out positive outcome such as prevent death and suffering on massive scare. Base on the I’ve heard from some people, especially those who’ve been in war that Even when their soldier caught...

Words: 405 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Is Torture Ever Justified Essay

...Is Torture Ever Acceptable? According to dictionary.com, the definition of torture is. “The act of inflicting excruciating pains, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information”. Torture has been here for a long time and people have gotten good and bad results from it. The debate centers around whether or not this act is humane and if it is worth the violation of civil rights that belong to every person in a civilized society. If we continue to use barbaric methods only to receive a mixed bag of results, is the implementation worth the abuse of fellow human beings? My goal is to prove that my research has found that torture is unacceptable in all cases. Torture is never justified because there are many reasons...

Words: 1036 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Is Toruture Justified

...Is Torture Justified? EN4120 23 August 2013 ITT Technical Institute Abstract Torture should be allowed if it saves lives. Why should any lives be lost if there is a way to save them. Terrorists are not even protected by the Geneva Conventions so why should they have the same rights and privileges as Prisoners of War. Is Torture Justified? So the question is, Is Torture Justified? My claim is that as long as torture saves lives then torture should be allowed by all means. Torture has always been a part of civilization. It goes back as far as the Greeks and Romans and as recently as when detainees were being held in Guantánamo Bay Cuba in 2004. In 1949 the Geneva Conventions was sanctioned during the wake of World War II. Even though the Geneva Conventions of 1949 was established torture has been and is still used inappropriately. Cornell University Law School found, “The Geneva Conventions are a series of treaties on the treatment of civilians, prisoners of war (POWs) and soldiers who are otherwise rendered hors de combat, or incapable of fighting.” The Geneva Conventions explains how terrorists are defined under the Geneva Conventions as not being held up to the same standards as Prisoner Of War are. So if terrorists are not to be considered protected by the Geneva Conventions then in that case torture should be justified for a least terrorists. Just think how many lives could have been saved if United States had the means or the opportunity to have tortured someone...

Words: 765 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Should Torture Be Allowe D

...CR: 5 I decided to read the article called Want to torture? Get a warrant. This article starts off by talking about torture being justified in specific situations. For example, it uses the ticking bomb scenario. This means that torture can be justified in order to force a political criminal to reveal the location of an explosive device before it can go off and kill many people. A number of people believe that torture can never be justified in a “moral society” no matter what the intent. Famous commentator and legal scholar Alan Dershowitz disagrees. He believes that torture can be justified in certain instances especially when many lives are in danger. He believes that most Americans would want law enforcement to use such methods even if the United Nations forbids torture no matter the circumstance. Dershowitz proposes a “torture warrant” where 1.there is an absolute need to obtain information in order to save lives, 2. Probable cause that the suspect has valuable information. The suspect would have immunity from prosecution based on information given. The warrant will limit torture to non-lethal means. They recognize that torture has been used before and think that if it’s already used, wouldn’t it be better to regulate it? Human rights watch is an international group dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world counters Dershowitz. They state that the ticking bomb scenario is down for debate that specific situation rarely ever happens. Interrogators...

Words: 427 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Critical Thinking - Human Rights and Torture

...Schumacher | Professor Dena HurstPHI 210 | Strayer University | 6/21/2013 | | How is torture defined? Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 says “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel; inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Does imposing torture amongst terrorist detainees help the United States in fighting the war on terror? Al Qaeda started its war against America by carrying out the simultaneous bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 2008, the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 and what pulled the United States into the global war on terrorism, September 11, 2001. What I will be discussing will be the political atmosphere after September 11th and the roles of our government officials and intelligence agencies. America is supposed to be a country of human rights and not to inflict cruel and unusual punishment on criminals sentenced in our own penal system. Where have we as a nation fallen? I do not believe that torturing or using “enhanced interrogation techniques” will give us the upper hand in the global war on terror. Who ultimately authorized the United States to enter into torturing another human being? The United States became aware of abuses and torturing of detainees from the Abu Ghraib scandal in Afghanistan in April 2004. Detainees underwent serious mistreatment, torture, threatened with dogs and other degrading situations. The photography of the military captors were...

Words: 1440 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Summary Of Torture's Terrible Toll By John Mccain

..."TORTURE'S TERRIBLE TOLL", BUT NEVER JUSTIFIED John McCain, in his article called "Torture's Terrible Toll" states that torture should not be part of the American mechanisms' to protect "American's soldiers, allies and American people's life." He believes that even in extreme cases such as 9/11, torture should not be considered as one of the options to resolve and so justified actions of abuse against human treatment. McCain also shares his personal experience of capture and points out how can a captured enemy could just be saying false information to relieve the pain from his torturer. He also talks how not using torture as a tool to defeat the enemies' attacks, makes Americans different from its enemies by just about human rights. He states how grateful and strong Americans soldiers fight and keep his honor with the believe that they are better than his captors. McCain believes that "American people needs intelligence to defeat their enemies", but intelligence that is really reliable", no brutal and cruel intelligence as a justification....

Words: 656 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Torture False Confessions

...Torture Produces False Confessions When it comes to the topic of whether torture is an effective means to gain information from terrorist, some of us readily agree that the use of harsh interrogation techniques and torture can lead to false confessions. Where this agreement usually ends is on the question of civilian safety and consequential terrorism attacks. Whereas some are convinced that these techniques are helpful, others maintain that confessions obtained while torturing an individual results in unreliable information. I disagree with the use of torture as an effective means to gain information from terrorist because of false information that will be given in order to stop the pain, thus, not helping in the defeat of an imminent attack and because there are other methods. In the perspective of war, torture has been justified as a means to extract information from the enemy in the cases where millions of lives are at stake or there are hostages involved. It is at this point where division is found in the debate of where torture is a good or bad, effective or wrong, and lastly necessary or corrupting. According to Webster dictionary, torture is defined as the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to...

Words: 539 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Kant's Morality

...wasn't giving information willingly, why did he give any information at all? It is hard to avoid thinking about the dirty word that everyone is too polite to mention, the "T-word": torture? They say it was just "interrogation," which is what torture lite is. Things like bags over the head, tight handcuffs, no light, no food or bathroom, endless shouting or blaring music or noise, bits of light violence. And, of course, the constant mental and emotional torture of fearing that serious physical pain might start taking place at any moment. But, is it morally correct to use these techniques on an individual just for the sole purpose of obtaining information? The following paper will go in-depth on the moral standpoints of torture lite. From an Act Utilitarian viewpoint, torture lite can indeed be justified. I would say that an individual act of torture lite is justified when it will clearly produce more good than harm. Weigh the suffering of the victim against the odds of either deterring great amounts of crime or obtaining information vital to avoid large amounts of suffering for the greater good. Basically, this act can surely benefit a society just by placing a little bit of suffering on someone to better the society as a whole. This is how torture lite can be justified. On the other side, torture lite is condemned by Rule Utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism can be seen as a practice rule, which states that even though in some or most cases the rule wouldn't cause the greatest...

Words: 1331 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Arguments Against Torture

...the history of the United States. On the same day, American President George W. Bush announced that the United States would lead the war on terrorism in order to protect the life of American citizens. This form of combat contained its on set of challenges as some human rights norms such as torture being an acceptable tool to combat terrorism entered public debate. Considered to be one of the most extreme forms of violence, torture involves inflicting...

Words: 831 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Debate Surrounding Torture Essay

...The Torture Debate Wednesday, January 22, 2014 Word Count: 983 The debate continues to intensify surrounding the issue of torture and whether or not it is a justifiable or unnecessary evil. Irrespective of its degree of acceptability, it is conclusively an inhumane practice, which violates the civil liberties of us as people. From the inception, I disagree with the use of coercion to elicit information, as I believe it compromises our humanity. Advocates of legitimizing torture proclaim that it is a controllable means with which to interrogate and obtain answers from dangerous individuals in the effort of saving innocent lives. While torture has proven to facilitate some desired outcomes in the past, its legitimacy has yet to be completely substantiated, especially in comparison to other interrogative techniques. Additionally, those not in favour of legalizing and implementing torture, also argue that torture will simply be used incompetently by the state. Realistically, the argument regarding the legitimacy of this atavistic tactic is one mostly dominated by human morals and opinions. Throughout the article, Rumney and O’Boyle write from a very analytical and objective perspective. First they highlight and consider the legitimacy of torture as a means of extracting information. Historically, torture has been proven to provide useful information to alleviate situations and preserve the lives of innocent people (Rumney & O'Boyle, 2007). In this sense, it is unjust...

Words: 1057 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Argumentative Essay On Torture

...Torture can be initiated through causing some form of mental anguish or physical pain, usually in order to gain information from the person being tortured. Torture is usually punishment for a serious crime,but is usually for the purpose of extracting a confession from an accused person. Many wonder nowadays should torture still be used in this day and age. Torture has been around since the times of the Ancient Greeks and is still around today, notoriously used in criminal organizations but also utilized by various governments when dealing with terrorist. Once the torture of Jews at the hands of the Nazis in World War II became knowledge to the public. In the nineteenth century Public opinion changed on the subject of torture, but torture still continued to be conducted but this time away from the watchful eye of the public International laws were legislated into effect to prevent the use of torture such as the...

Words: 2162 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

Torture and Ethics

...Torture and Ethics Paper Alfreepha Williams AJS/532 July 21, 2013 Patricia DeAngelis Torture and Ethics 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 refinement of a meaning or an argument” (“Torture,” 2013). There are debates about torture and whether or not is unethical or a cruel and unusual punishment. People have been taught to believe that torturing a person is unacceptable and inhumane. However, the torturing of an enemy to get answers is not considered cruel and inhumane especially, when it involves saving the lives of many. This paper will analyze whether torturing enemy combatants or high-value targets violates standards of morality in an American free society. It will also examine whether the act of torture violates basic human rights and if it could have global implications, and last determine if torture may be justified under ontological, deontological, utilitarianism, or the natural...

Words: 1598 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

20th Century Torture

...Throughout time, torture has been used to extract important information from people who are unwilling to give it. Some argue that it is a necessary, justified and effective way of forcing someone to release vital information they may not have wanted to, while others argue it is unjustified, unnecessary, violent and inhumane. Governments sometimes characterise torture as an indispensable interrogation tool for gathering strategic intelligence. However as highlighted by countless historical figures such as Napoleon Bonaparte and Greek philosopher Aristotle, torture is almost always pointless because most people, if put in sufficient pain, will say absolutely anything to stop it (Scott, 1995). Therefore this essay sets out to argue that torture...

Words: 978 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Torture and Ethics Paper

...Torture and Ethics Paper Jennifer Yow ASJ 532 June 16, 2014 Since -9/11, torture has been official US policy by George Bush at the highest levels of government. On September 17, 2001, George Bush signed a secret finding empowering CIA to "Capture, Kill, or Interrogate Al-Queda Leaders." (Lendman, 2008). It also authorized establishing a secret global facilities to detain and interrogate them without guidelines on proper treatment. In the same time, Bush approved a secret "high-value target list" of about two dozen names. He also gave CIA free reign to capture, kill and interrogate terrorists that were not on the list (Lendman, 2008). What is torture: (a) the intentional infliction of extreme physical pain or suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless person; (b) the intentional, substantial curtailment of the exercise of a person's autonomy (achieved by means of (a)); (c) in general, undertaken for the purpose of breaking the victim's will." We will discuss terrorism and torture, look at arguments for and against each practice, and ethically evaluate those arguments (Lendman, 2008).. If pain is meant to break the will of the person, one must ask when we might have an interest in doing so. Certainly violating the freedom through violence is not acceptable for citizens; I may not justifiably torture you to obtain what I want from you, be it your property, your behavior, or your ideological consent (Lendman, 2008). Also, the police may not torture to obtain information...

Words: 1562 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

Terrorism: Does It Justify the Use of Torture

...Terrorism: Does It Justify the Use of Torture Eric M. Skogen SOC 120 Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility Prof. Linda Atkinson January 23, 2012 Terrorism: Does It Justify the Use of Torture Torture is used by governments throughout the world to include the United States as way to extract information from a person or persons. By inflicting severe pain the torturer forces the captive to do or say something that could lead to information of a supposed terrorist attack or pertinent details of upcoming events. The act of torture has been used against prisoners of war, possible insurgents, religious sympathizers and political prisoners since Christ was crucified at the cross. In the early 1970’s, certain governments begin to see a form of violence start to evolve called “terrorism” and with that came prisoners who were called “terrorists.” Although many countries employ torture techniques against those that are dubbed “political prisoners” not all countries label them as terrorists or even face potential threats of terrorism to the extent other countries do. Over the next several pages I will discuss events that have taken place since the 1970’s leading up to the current terrorist acts we face today and how the use of torture has played a role in these events. I will also discuss how the use of torture brings up a great ethical debate of what is right and wrong and how governments attempt to justify the use of torture. I will state how one of the classical...

Words: 2033 - Pages: 9