Read the essay on pp. 196 - 200 (Bargaric and Clarke's "Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible"). Note that the argument is far more sophisticated and complex than Singleton's essay.
For Friday, write a summary paragraph as you did in PA#7.
Follow the same basic organizational structure, but now add an introductory "hook," some fact, anecdote, quotation, or story that will grab the reader's attention. Choose wisely and don't spend too much time on the hook. You may want to return to it in the body of the essay or in the conclusion.
Thus, organize in this way:
1. Hook and then a transition to the next sentence
2. Summarize the main argument. Don't forget to work in the authors' full
name and the title of the essay. I typical template for that first
sentence might be as follows. In [title of the essay], [author's full
name] [verb from the list in TSIS] that [the author's main argument/
thesis].
3. Summarize the supporting arguments, each in their turn. Use
transitions to indicate the flow of the argument and the fact that Bargaric and Clarke and not you is arguing.
Here, you'll need to understand the underlying organizational principle
of the essay. Writers don't always make them obvious. Use your
understanding of that organizational principle to structure your
summary.
4. State the underlying principle present in Bargaric and Clarke's essay -- the
idea that makes the argument go. You can think of it as the thesis, but
it is often unstated. Think of it as the idea that you will either
defend or refute in subsequent paragraphs in the body of an essay that
follows this introductory summary.
Torture is an old technique that is becoming increasingly frowned upon due to the argument that it is breaching the human rights code, which raises the question: is it really necessary? In "Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible," Mirko Agaric and Julie Clarke argue that torture is indeed a morally permissible technique, if one looks at the big picture. Firstly, when innocent lives are at stake, one must feel morally obligated to help them out. If torture is the only way to help save those lives, then one must do so. To go further, they argue that a moral person must realize that if one had to chose between innocent people, or the perpetrator, the protection of the innocent should always come first. Secondly, the widely believed phenomenon that torture is a slippery slope is simply false. This is because torture has already been widely used, and by prohibiting torture, it would in fact only reduce the use of torture for good causes, as criminal organizations would still use it regardless of the law. Thirdly, torture is most certainly not dehumanizing, because when looking at the big picture, it often ends up choosing the lives of the innocent versus the well being of the perpetrator. Lastly, Although it is never completely certain that torture will help save every innocent person, it is too risky to let any opportunity go to waste when it comes to saving lives. Bargaric and Clarke reiterate that life-saving torture is a human practice because it the peoples moral obligation to help save as many innocent lives as possible, and often, torture is the only way.
ReplyDeleteTorture, it is arguably one of the most looked down upon because it violates some of the human rights. With that being said, there comes the age old question: ' is torture really nessecary in order to get someone to give vital information ?' Well in Bargaric and Clark's " Torture: when the unthinkable becomes permissible" Mirko agaric and Julie Clark are clearly in favor of what many people think m is so unethical in many ways. Firstly, when someone is in danger, or someone knows some sort of vital information, you somehow feel morally obligated to help them out. So you will do even the unthinkable and resort to torture to get that vital information. Secondly the saying that " torture is a slippery slope" is completely absurd. This is because torture has been used globally for over 200 years. Thus, the prohibition of torture would only discontinue it for good causes. Finally, although it is not always a straight shot to saving someones life or the world's, many people feel as though it's a necessary risk that we as morally sane , and justice driven people should take
ReplyDelete“Tortue is almost universally deplored” (Bagaric, 196). In Mirko Bageric and Julie Clarke’s, “Torture:When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible,” Bageric and Clarke dispute the moral justifications of torturing another human being. Bageric and Clarke begin by describing how a hostage situation could call for torture by killing the “wrongdoer.” From here, Bageric and Clarke state multiple counterarguments. The first counterargument is that torture will open the floodgates for more moral injustice and violence. Bageric and Clarke’s second counterargument is that torture will “dehumanize society” (Bageric, 198). The third and final counterargument made is that no person can ever be positive that torture will actually result in saving an innocent life. At this point, Bageric and Clarke claim how life-saving torture is a human practice, that reduction of pain is high-order moral imperative. It goes on to discuss how killing innocent people is always bad, and that criticism has gone so far to be contradictory to what is trying to be proven. Bageric and Clarke then bring up the idea of how surgery is inflicting pain on people. Bageric and Clarke drive their argument through countless examples and evidence of why torture is just but also stating counterarguments. For almost argument Bageric and Clarke make, there is almost always a counterargument as well. Bageric and Clarke bring forth a lot of facts on the topic of torture and inflicting pain and do a good job of defending their reasons of why torture should be allowed in situations.
ReplyDeleteIn 2006, the Intelligence Science Board, an organization that provides evidence to the United States Intelligence Community, developed a report called “Educing Information,” which investigated various parts of the science and art of interrogation. After studying interrogations of suspects of terrorism, the board determined that “one could easily conclude that coercive methods are not only effective, but also substantially more effective than non-coercive methods in obtaining actionable intelligence from resistant sources.” This study is supported by the arguments in the essay “Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible,” by Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke. The authors argue that torture is justified in order to save the lives of innocent people. They begin by giving a scenario of a hostage being taken. In order to save the life of the hostage, Bagaric and Clarke make three distinct arguments. First, the authors claim that torture is inevitable and should not be banned. Secondly, although they say that torture may dehumanize society, the authors propose that torture is the same as self defense. Bagaric and Clarke explain that society must decide to either hurt the wrongdoer or let the innocent get hurt; therefore, torture seems like the appropriate option. Finally, torturing does not guarantee that the innocent will be saved, but people must do whatever is possible in order to save those in need. Overall, coercive methods of torturing the wrongdoers is a necessary evil that will ultimately save the lives of those who are innocent.
ReplyDeleteAlthough most countries around the world condemn the use of torture, Amnesty International reports that, within the past five years, 141 countries have been exposed for using torture. Brutality may include techniques from using sleep deprivation to extremes such as waterboarding. Many people argue that torture is immoral; however, others contend that torture is sometimes essential. In "Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible," Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke argue that torture is acceptable when it is used "to save the life of an innocent person." The authors defend this stance through refuting three counterarguments. Firstly, Bagaric and Clarke claim that the legalization of torture in limited circumstances would not increase the instances under which torture is used. Secondly, they propose that torture will not dehumanize society because it is no different than self-defense, favoring the innocent over a wrongdoer, or surgeons who unintentionally inflict pain in order to save lives. In addition, Bagaric and Clarke emphasize that pain is unavoidable, however, pain minimization is the main goal. Thirdly, they propose that if sufficient evidence is provided, torturing someone is justifiable in order to save an innocent life. One cannot know that inflicting torture will lead to saving an innocent life, but the authors believe that it is a necessary risk. Bagaric and Clarke imply that torture should be accepted under extreme instances.
ReplyDeleteTorture is considered by some to be a human coarse of action. In their short essay “Torture: When the Unthinkable Is Morally Permissible,” Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke argue that torture can in fact be a morally sound method of saving innocent peoples lives. They place a great deal of emphasis on the words “saving,” and “innocent lives.” Bagaric and Clarke provide a very good example as to how torture can be a moral cause when compared too a hostage situation. Police officers have the permission to shoot and kill the perpetrator who is holding the individual hostage. Because the use of lethal force is deemed as acceptable, Both Bagaric and Clarke agree that using torture as another means of attaining life saving information is morally sound. In order too further support their essay, Bargaric and Clarke refute three counterarguments that could oppose their perspective on human torture: the slippery slope argument, the gradual process of the dehumanization of society through torture, and the uncertainty if torture will actually result in the saving of lives. The first opposing view expresses peoples wide spread fear that once torture is seen as moral course of action, an increase in its use will occur for situations that might not acquire such extreme incentives. According to both authors this counterargument is a fallacy within itself, as over one hundred countries across the globe have admitted to the use of torture. The second counterargument against Bargaric and Clarke raises concerns regarding the potential dehumanization of society through the use of torture. Both authors refute this argument by stating that if a society is more concerned bout the wellbeing of wrong doers, as opposed to the victims, said society would have to revise its code of morals and ethics. The third and final counterargument raises the valid point that sometimes, torture may not always result in the saving of another human being’s life. There could be some error in the intelligence gathered which ultimately prompted, say a government agency, to torture a suspect for vital information. Again, Bargaric and Clarke use the hostage situation metaphor, pointing out the fact that the gun used by the perpetrator may not be loaded. However, police always assume that the weapon is in fact armed, and proceed with the utmost efficiency and lethality in such a situation. Refuting these three arguments provides a sense of legitimacy and authenticity to both the thesis and underlying topics of this essay. Bargaric and Clarke explain in their essay that the way in which society functions today, is impossible to deem torture as dehumanizing. They believe that society has already embraced a system in which torture is acceptable and could in no way shape or form, alter societies socially construct.
ReplyDelete“Torture is used widely, despite the absolute legal prohibition against it” (Bagorik and Clarke). In “Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible”, Mirko Bagorik and Julie Clarke discuss the means of torture. Torture is used to punish, and or get information for certain people. Torture is allowed when it is deemed necessary. When Bagorik and Clarke compare torture to prison, they believe, “there is no moral difference” (Bagorik and Clarke). The authors are getting the point across that torture is not just what most people think of when they hear the word “torture.” The writers believe that torture should be used when it comes to saving one’s life.
ReplyDeleteTorture is a common technique for people to cause pain and suffering to someone for personal satisfaction or in order to gather information. In the short essay “Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible” written by Mirko Bagorik and Julie Clark, the means of torture are being discussed. The authors of this essay claim that torture is not something necessarily bad, as long as it is being used for the right reasons. For them the right reason is to save someone’s life. When it is for a bigger purpose rather than just for personal satisfaction.
ReplyDeleteThe use of torture has been a highly debatable topic because it violates basic human rights, but at the same it saves many innocent lives; it raises the question: is it right? In “When The Unthinkable Is Morally Permissible,” Mark Bagaric and Julie Clarke argue that torture is instrumental in order to save innocent lives. Bagaric and Clarke develop many arguments and why torture is essential in society. First, torture is not morally wrong. The writers defend this position by explaining that torturing an individual to save an innocent life is more than reasonable. It is morally indecent to allow an innocent person to die than to save their life by inflicting pain in a suspect. Secondly, the writers propose is that legalizing torture in specific scenarios will not increase the likelihood of torture in society. They state that torture is already widely used despite the fact that it is illegal. They also state that legalizing it, in fact ,will reduce torture. Thirdly, Bagaric and Clarke argue that the use of torture will not dehumanize society. The writers compare torture with self defense because the wrongdoer deserves to face the consequence. The fourth argument is that the relatives of the victims would be distraught and feel more pain and outweigh the pain the suspect would feel. Lastly, the fifth argument the writers propose is that a torturer has the same role as a surgeon. Both people are helping society for the greater good, either helping to save an innocent life or helping someone get out of their misery by preparing surgery. In conclusion, Bagaric and Clarke explain how the use of torture is essential in society because of the underlying principle that the use of torture saves lives.
ReplyDelete“‘Our reflex rejection of torture needs to be replaced by recognition that can be moral means of saving lives.”’ In “From Torture: When The Unthinkable Is Morally Permissible.” by Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clark, torture is seen as something that is morally permissible, but if seen for the big picture and if viewed the right way. The first argument that is made is that torture is a slippery slope, which states that is torture is seen in a smaller context, the situations that it is used will increase. This is not correct, and in fact, torture was seen to be carried out in one hundred and thirty two different countries, one of them being the United States and that perhaps the legalization will help prevent the actions of torture in future instances. Secondly, torture will dehumanize society, this is also incorrect. It is said that society elects to favor the wrongdoers rather than those who are innocent. Thirdly, we can never be totally sure that torturing a person can save an innocent life. Bagaric and Clark provide an example of a hostage situation, “the hostage-takers gun might be in fact empty, yet it is still permissible to shoot. As with any decision, we must decide on the best evidence at the time.” The last argument made by Clark and Bagaric is that life-saving torture is a humane practice. They think that the argument of torture as dehumanizing is simply contradicting. This is because, if someone can stand by and watch an innocent person be killed, why is it that inflicting pain on someone in order to achieve information is morally wrong. They argue that if society is already dehumanized, what will torture do to effect the society that has already been put forth before us.
ReplyDelete“Torture in order to save an innocent person is the only situation where it is clearly justifiable.” In the essay “Torture: When The Unthinkable Is Morally Permissible,” authors Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke argue their opinion that torture is an acceptable way of obtaining information that could save countless lives. Bagaric and Clarke make the point that, “Torture is permissible where the evidence suggests that this is the only means, due to the immediacy of the situation.” Bagaric and Clarke only agree with the use of torture when it becomes the last option in saving someone’s life. The authors also argue that torture can be viewed as self-defense, “the right to self-defense, which of course extends to the defense of another.” The authors agree on the fact that inflicting pain on someone is bad, and they suggest on taking a, “pain-minimization approach” on torture. They also argue the fact that torture will dehumanize society by explaining how surgeons inflict pain on their patients everyday, and also have purpose in saving lives. The point that the authors are really to drive home in their essay is that torture is a morally ok way to obtain information from another person in order to save one or multiple lives.
ReplyDeleteTorture is one of the most controversial topics because its based upon peoples opinions and what each individual considers morally acceptable. In “Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible,” Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke discuss how they are in favor of the use of torture in three instances. Firstly, they believe torture is acceptable when important information needs to be obtained, or if innocent lives are in danger. Secondly, Bagaric and Clarke believe that the statement “torture is a slippery slope” is just ridiculous. Torture is not a new concept. In fact, it has been used for years all around the world. If torture became prohibited, it would only lessen its positive effects and its use for a good cause would disappear. Lastly, though there is no guarantee that one can save a life through torture, even the slightest possibility that you could save an innocent person through the means of torture is worth it and found morally acceptable by Bagaric and Clarke.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIn “Torture: When the unthinkable is Morally Permissible,” Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke write about their positive viewpoint on torture. They argue that torture is and should be a morally permissible technique. Bagaric and Clarke bring up many points of argument that income of which include that when innocent lives are at stake, one must feel morally obligated to help them out. If one is in where they have to chose between an innocent person or punishing a perpetrator, the choice is always the innocent person. In addition, they believe that torture should not be banned because its legalization would only increase the ability of individuals to use torture for the right purposes as opposed to the people that use torture for negative purposes, whom would do such acts whether it was against the law or not. In accordance, they argue a major concern towards permitting torture, specifically, that it will not dehumanize society if it is used for self-defense. The authors emphasise that torture is a necessary process that will save lives and should become socially acceptable when used within certain circumstances.
“The belief that torture is always wrong is, however, misguided and symptomatic of the alarmist and reflexive responses typically emanating from social commentators.” In the essay “Torture: When The Unthinkable Is Morally Permissible,” authors Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke argue their opinion that torture is permissible in order to save the life of an innocent person(s). One of the key points in their claim that condoning torture in any situation is dehumanizing is flawed because it takes an unjustifiably narrow perspective of the proposal at hand and mischaracterizes the motivation for the proposal. Undeniably, inflicting pain on another is morally wrong, the authors argue that, “when we are confronted with a situation where we must choose between who will bear unavoidable pain, we need to take a pain-minimization approach” (Bagaric and Clarke). Meaning the punishment who had the greatest impact on the situation must therefore pay the price than the innocent person(s) who were affected. In addition, in assessing all of the parties involved must be given equal consideration. If the justice system did not do any investigation of past history and background checks of the parties involved and rule the situation as seen on the surface level, the wrong party may be chosen. Such speculative penalties can result in less than other punishments, but sometimes the speculative side is taken to outweigh certain bad penalties. Torture in order to save an innocent person is the only situation where it is clearly justifiable.
ReplyDelete“Two wrongs don’t make a right.” I could never fully either agree or disagree with this phrase since I heard it from my high school English teacher. Unlike me, however, it is highly likely that Bajaric and Clarke would not support the proverb at all. In their essay called “From Torture: When the Unthinkable Is Morally Permissible,” Bajaric and Clarke claim that torturing the aggressors in circumstances where innocent people’s lives are at risk is just, thus morally permissible. They believe that by considering as if torture should be taboo, the society calls for injustice and unbearable suffering and puts offender’s right before that of an innocent person. They indicate that there are three main counterarguments and refute each one of them. The slippery slope argument suggests that once allowed, the use of torture will increase and there will be torture abuse. They don’t find this argument very profound, for there is evidence that demonstrates the wide use of torture in places where torture is absolutely banned. About the argument which claims dehumanization of society due to torture, they argue that the ones who should be blamed for dehumanization of society are not the innocent people but the offenders, thus the society that favors offenders over the innocent should be alarmed. In response to the third counterargument, a concerned voice in regard to the uncertainty of whether torture will actually save a life, they assert that because there is always a risk in making a decision, what we should do is to rely on the best evidence.
ReplyDeleteTorture is not necessary wrong. At least Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke do not seem to think so. In the article “Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible,” Bagaric and Clarke believed that torture, which has been wronged and distorted by society, in many cases is defensible, justifiable, and yet also deemed as humane. The idea of this book is to be utilitarian: by giving concrete examples rather than theorize. First, when we have a choice between saving the life of an innocent person, and not harming a terrorist or other wrongdoer, it is indecent to absolutely prefer the interests of the wrongdoer. In hostage scenario, one is granted universal permit by general society to violate the right to life of the aggressor to save innocent people. In the mean time, though torture is prohibited by any legal context, it is used widely. In fact, total ban of torture could drive torture into some sort of underground punishment unbeknown by all. By all means if torture is correlating with self-defense, it is a clearly justifiable situation. Many believe that torture is dehumanizing society, but in contrary, if the torture is justifiable then society tends to elects to favor of those that exercised torture. Thus, despite that dehumanization critics misguided the idea of torture, but when torture involves the situation of saving innocent lives, then it would be permissible.
ReplyDeleteTorture is a brutal technique used to make people suffer slowly. They might do this to get a point across or to get information from a person they may need. Some may say Torture is okay if it’s helping the whole at the end of the day to maybe save a life, “Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible,” authors Julie Clarke and Mirko Bagaric. The authors try and get across that torture can be used as “self-defense”. In the text it even said “the right to self-defense, which of course extends to the defense of another.” The authors think that torture is not morally wrong at all. For example the author seems like they want to legalize torture. They think in making torture legal will reduce the use of it. Another point made in this argument is torture may dehumanize society. They think “Allowing innocent people to be killed does not dehumanize society.” The underlying principle of this short story is that torture is okay if it saves lives of the innocent.
ReplyDeleteIn “Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible,” by Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke, they try to discuss the positives to using torture all around the world. When people think about torture being right or wrong Mirko and Julie made an excellent point about it being worth it to harm a wrongdoer to save an innocent person. They also say that legalizing it or not it will still happen around the world just like it is now. It has even been proved that over 132 countries have been reported torturing or having ill-treatment to prisoners. Bagaric and Clarke then go on to give a couple of counterarguments that include the slippery slope argument, and the situations in which it will be used will increase. Even with giving these counterarguments they still follow up by saying “The floodgates are already open, torture is used widely, despite the absolute legal prohibition against it.” The world must realize that legalize it or not all the countries will still be doing it, so by legalizing it, it would be doing every country a favor.
ReplyDeleteIf you had to choose between saving the life of a victim and causing someone some pain or not cause anyone pain and risk the chance of someone dying, what would you choose? In the essay “Torture: When The Unthinkable is Morally Permissible” written by Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke, they discuss why torture is a necessary part of society to save the innocent. Bararic and Clarke discuss how many people who believe torture is wrong don’t realize the wrong being done if one person isn’t stopped. In paragraph 3 they state “torture is permissible where the evidence suggests that this is the only means, due to the immediacy of the situation, to save the life of an innocent person.” Bararic and Clarke are saying that not in every situation where someone is harming someone else, is torture going to be used. But say in the situation where a person is holding a gun to an innocent victim’s head, there probably is a chance that torture, in this case a clear shot to shoot the gunman, may be required. Baragic and Clarke also bring up that many people against torture believe torture will dehumanize our society. The writers bring that a society that sits and lets criminals do harms to innocent is more dehumanized than a society that keeps the innocent safe and allows torture. Another point brought up the many of the opposed to to torture believe it will cause distress to the people doing the torture because they caused someone so much pain. Baragic and Clarke argue that this is similar to a surgeon. The surgeon knows that the surgery and the recovery process from most surgeries is going to be very painful to the patient but it is because of the good outcome that makes it worth it. Baragic and Clarke support torture because it protects the innocent and want people to realize that our society needs it.
ReplyDeleteSince the fall of the twin towers, a total of 420 individual has been torture at the hands of the United state. In Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke's essay, "Torture: when the unthinkable is morally permissible argues that "Our reflex rejection of torture needs to be replaced by a recognition that it can be a moral way of saving lives." Torture is a common act that has a long, thorough history; however, this is an absolutist and short method, and torture should only be used to save an innocent person's life because there is a right to self-defense which extends to the defense of others. To Justify himself, the speaker uses an analogy using police officers in a hostage crisis, as his primary example. By using this example, the speakers elevate his argument by invoking pathos which in turns enable people to think that "yes hostages might die, but it is for the beneficial for society as a whole." To fully showcase both sides of the argument, the speaker presented three counterarguments to torture: first, If we start allowing torture in a limited context it will increase, but this is not sound because the Torture will dehumanize society; floodgates are already opened and tortured is currently being widely used in many countries, second Torture will dehumanize society; however any society that elects to favor the interests of the wrongdoers over those of the innocent is in need of serious ethical rewiring, and third, we can never really be sure that torture will save an innocent's life; however, we need to base our judgement on the evidence at the time. The speakers immediate rebuttal uses the analogy of 1st responders pushing someone out of the way to save lives of others. Using those examples as sometimes bad things must be done so you can do what is right. The arguments put forth here supporting his thesis that although torture may be unreliable and demoralizing, it would be inhumane to let an innocent person suffer. In the end, Bagaric and Clarke claim that torture is acceptable if you're doing it to save an innocent person.
ReplyDeleteIn “Torture: When the unthinkable is morally permissible,” by Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke, both make the case that torture is acceptable under the circumstance that it is the last permissible option and it is to save a life. Bagaric and Clarke argue that in order to minimize the pain of the innocent people and their relatives, one must inflict physical pain on the suspect at hand. However, both parties best interest still must be taken into mind. Will the consequence of torturing a suspect outweigh the consequence of the pain inflicted on innocent people’s relatives? (In this case the suspect is going to blow up these people). In the event that we as a society side with the suspect’s best interests, Bargaric and Clark state theoretically state that we would become a society that refuses to take all reasonable steps to save an innocent life. “Rescuers would not be permitted to push aside bystanders for fear of bruising them, ambulances would not rush to save sick people for fear of colliding into other cards…etc (Bargaric & Clarke). The authors also raise a point that people have been inflicting pain on others and have demonstrated no loss in morality. This is a counterargument to people that dehumanize the torturer. I think what Bargaric & Clarke is trying to tell us is that although under most circumstances torture is wrong, it must be deemed necessary in order to save innocent lives.
ReplyDeleteTorture is well known around the world and have been around for a very long time torture for people to cause pain in order to gather information or for personal satisfaction. In the essay "Torture: the unthinkable is morally permissible "Julie Clark and Mirko Bagorik the authors, in the bookit goes over the real meaning of torture are being discussed. The essay provided claims that torture is not something necessary bad,as long you torture somebody to save somebody else life. When it is for bigger purpose rather than just for personal satisfaction.
ReplyDeleteTorture could lead us towards saving thousands of victims lives. But the real question is it morally right to torture someone to get answers? I don't think it is morally right, but when this person is threatening peoples lives, I believe we need to do everything in our power to stop it. I have a younger brother, and if he was in danger I would torture that person until I had answers. I believe it's a messed up way to get answers, but if it saves innocent lives then thats all that matters.
ReplyDeleteIn Mirko Bageric and Julie Clarke’s, “Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible” the ethical question of torture is brought up. While 141 countries have been known to use torture, most attempt to distance themselves as much from torture as possible. The most important question Clarke and Bageric bring up is the hypocrisy of these nations and their use of torture. While the issue of torture is one of the most debated subjects of the 21st century, an overwhelming majority of major nations use it, including many of the major 1st world countries. Another important issue Bageric and Clarke bring up is the innocent man argument. The most common justification for torture is that torturing one man could possibly save the lives of countless more. Bageric and Clarke support this argument by saying that even if torture remained “illegal” it wouldn’t stop the widespread undercover usage of torture. In addition, they argue it functions as self-defense, turning the aggressor into the victim in order to save those he has planned or has wronged. Lastly, they believe that if someone has committed a crime worthy of torture, for example 9/11 or another major terrorist attack, then they have fully accepted the possibility of being tortured.
ReplyDeleteSix days after the attacks of 9/11, the Bush administration issued a secret order authorizing the CIA to detain terrorism suspects, giving the okay to extract information with whatever means necessary – even if it included acts of torture and coercion. When matters of legality came into question, lawyers for the CIA defended the acts, explaining that “torture was necessary to prevent imminent, significant, physical harm to persons, where there is no other available means to prevent harm”. This same perspective is considered in the essay “Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible”, by Bagaric and Clarke, who defend acts such as these, if it means saving the life of an innocent person. If anything, the authors strive to make the reader consider torture beyond a cut and dry moral imperative, explaining that adhering to this perspective results in just as many injustices. A central argument against the use of torture is that if we allow it, the situations in which it will be used will increase, which is simply not the case – if it were legal, it would be standardized, making clear under what circumstances, and what forms of torture, are legally permissible. The idea that allowing torture would dehumanize society is also considered, to which the authors make the point that “a society that elects to favor the interests of wrongdoers over those of the innocent, when a choice must be made between the two, is in need of serious ethical rewiring”. The final counterargument presented is the variable success of torture – in that there is no way to foresee whether inflicting such methods will necessarily result in saving an innocent life. This may be true, but circumstances dictate decisions – if there is any chance of saving an innocent life, then subsequent actions should facilitate this. As with the quote above, the innocent should always favor the interests of the innocent rather than those of the wrongdoers. Clarke and Bagaric argue a highly controversial subject, attempting to objectify it as a means of examination. They maintain that torture is permissible if it can save an innocent life, a means of acknowledging the blatant misuse of torture in the period following 9/11.
ReplyDeleteWhen the word torture rolls off of your tongue, you don’t think of a beautiful waterfall in the forest. Instead, you think of the painful and cruel antics of a certain group of people or government. Torture a brutal practice that has been occurring for hundreds of years. It is used to get information from someone who has possibly committed a crime, or it is just the act of slowly killing someone who did something so terrible, that people really want him/her to have a slow death. In “Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible,” by Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke, they discuss the good things that come by using torture. They talk about how it is a success all around the world because it is some sort of “self-defense” but to me it seems like they want revenge. I personally disagree with them. I think that torture is a crime itself and should not and cannot be justified.
ReplyDelete