Take a position on the use of torture as described by Bagaric and
Clarke. Then post discussion notes for our class discussion on Monday.
Those notes should consist of
1. The thesis of a
potential essay. Please remember that the thesis is based on YOUR claim
about torture and is not a claim made by B & C. Your thesis probably
ought to play off of B & C's ideas, but the idea expressed should
be your idea.
2. A set of claims that either support B
& C or refute their claims. Those claims can get a bit complicated
because many of B & C's claims are already refutations.
3. A set of arguments that respond to possible refutations of your claims.
4. Any evidence that you can drum up supporting your claims and possible responses to refutations of your claim.
As
usual, have your notes posted by Thursday at 5 PM so that the
rest of the class and I can have a chance to read them before our class
discussion on Friday. Also, please bring a hard copy (or a
suitable way of reading your notes via electronic device) to class.
You'll do better in the class discussion if you have your notes in front
of you.
Torture Essay Discussion Notes
ReplyDeleteThesis:
Individuals need punished for their wrong doings. Torture should be the last option if necessary. Punishments like being sentenced to jail, community service, and teaching the right way to do things could be the first option if possible.
Claims:
Torture is allowed - if only means/needs immediate action to save innocent lives
Right to self-defense - extending to defense of others
Depends on history of the threat
Should not be an absolute ban/torture for every punishment-only when necessary
Certain wrongdoings could be an accident or small problem that could be fixed in different less harmful ways -but still punishable punishments
Arguments:
It might create limited situations to increase, allowing reasons to vary even more
Small punishments might not be enough to keep others safe
People could continue to get away with small things if they don’t understand and take punishment seriously
How will the level of seriousness of the problem be determined?
Where should the line be drawn?
Will this be a country wide law or just by state?
How do we ensure that the wrongdoer understands their punishment and what they did wrong? Will it really fix their choices after their punishment?
Evidence:
Bad guys that are a huge threat and can’t be stopped any other way
Minor mistakes that can be fixed -theft- could be taught to fix their choices
Other events -could lose license or other valuable items until the problem is fixed
Thesis:
ReplyDelete-People who do wrong should be punished, but it should be through jail time, community service, or probation. Torture may be used but only in extreme cases, but we need to make sure we always keep an eye on the use of torture because many people abuse their power to use torture.
Claims:
-Torture is okay to use depending on if there needs to be an immediate action to save innocent lives, on history of the threat
-Right to self-defense
-Should not torture for every punishment, only when necessary
-Could be an accident or small issue that could be fixed in different less harmful ways but still have punishments
Arguments:
-It’s hard to regulate what is a small issue (How will the level of seriousness of the problem be determined?)
-Also will every type of so called police force be able to tortured
-Hard to keep a watchful eye on people who are doing the torturing
-Without torture some people could continue to get away with small things if they don’t get tortured
-Will we torture minors?
Evidence:
-Some bad people that cause a huge threat can’t be stopped any other way or don’t take the other punishments seriously
-Misdemeanors don’t need the use of torture because they can be fixed through different programs or things.
1. torture came about after war on terror, it is always wrong and is a part of the social rhetoric.
ReplyDelete2. But it should be allowed when it is the only means.
3. Right to self defense is eventually torturing.
4. Harming wrongdoer and saving many innocent people.
5. Right to life should be given more preference as compared to the right to physical integrity.
6. Torture is like a slippery slope; eventually everyone will do it.
• Torture already widely used.- still does not justify the use of torture.
• Now under accountability- people will still torture under the radar.
7.Torture will dehumanize society.
• Saving innocent and killing wrong doer.
• Society already dehumanized-it isn’t and this will increase problem.
8.we are causing pain to wrong doer and many times the cause for torturing people is unjust.
• No scope for moral justification-Guantanamo bay 23% criminals were unjustly locked up. Moral justification is important.
• At the end of the day saving life to the maximum is important.
• Never know if suspect is truly a criminal.
• Need information from suspects.
• Surgeon analogy doesn’t apply.
• Self defense argument is flawed.
Thesis: Torture is an unjust way to treat human beings. People should not be physically or mentally abused, even if they are criminals or prisoners.
ReplyDeleteClaims:
- Many times torture is ineffective
- The information that is given from torture is often false
- The interrogators are at risk of losing the ability of thinking clearly while torturing
- Torturing people will cause our country to have a worse reputation worldwide
- Make the enemy gain more hatred for us
- Puts our soldiers at risk of being tortured back
Counter Arguments:
- It can give us information
- It can save lives
- Some other countries torture us so we should be able to torture them
- The law allows for some forms of torture
Determining on how serious the criminal charge is I think there should be torture. If it has a possibility to save innocent lives then qualified people should have the right to torture an individual until the information is told. But that all depends on what kind of crime that individual commits. If it is a small convicted crime then the individual should be sentenced to jail, community service or probation.
ReplyDeleteClaims:
-Torture should only be used to get information from an individual to prevent a serious crime happening.
-Jail and probation is a good method.
-Torture should only happen when necessary and if small crime then there should be a small sentence.
Arguments:
-How can we determine when torture is the method.
-National law or state law?
-Some people do not care if they go to jail. They will be in and out of jail. Should torture be involved?
-There will be a lot people tortured for small crimes.
-What will happen to people who are committed of crimes that they did not do?
Evidence:
There are programs set up for people who have committed misdemeanors.
Thesis: when someone has committed a crime they should be punished. If torture was used to get information that would help save other lives then it should be used. It should only be used if it helps prevent others from getting hurt. If someone has committed a small crime, they shouldn’t be harmed.
ReplyDeleteClaims:
Torture should only be used to obtain information.
It should only be used for serious crimes.
It should only be used if it can help to prevent innocent lives from being in danger.
Jail time is a good method for smaller crimes.
It's a form of self defensive
Arguments:
How can we decide who gets tortured
What if the wrong person is getting tortured
It's in human to torture another human
Is torture and state law or a country wide law
Thesis:
ReplyDeletePersons that do wrong should be punished, but should be punished through community service, jail time, lose licences, or classes first; that is unless the wrongdoing is of an extreme case or the wrongdoer has a bad history, then torture may be used (but only when absolutely necessary).
Claims:
Torture may be used but only in extreme cases involving innocent lives
Depends on the threat or history of a threat
Torture shouldn’t be banned-but only used when absolutely necessary
Issue could be accidental-in this case torture isn’t necessary but possibly some other punishment (ex: community service, classes, jail time)
Right of defense-even over someone else's life
Torture can be used to save many innocent lives
Arguments:
How will the severity of a threat or crime be determined?
Who determines the severity?
Who has the right to torture (ex: police)?
Will torturing be a state issue or a national issue?
Is there a age limit to people who are being tortured?
Will torturing actually work? Will it save lives or teach a lesson?
What will be considered torture?
Are there different levels of torture?
Evidence:
Extreme Wrongdoers may not take any other punishment seriously, torture may be the only way
Torture can save more innocent lives
Torture can give us valuable information
No matter what the situation may be, torture isn't the answer to the problem. A huge problem that can a occur is the wrong information giving out while torturing, which is a problem with this method.
ReplyDeleteClaims:
-Torture allows officials to obtain the information in a timely fashion.
-Terrorists are deserving of some extra punishment as a result of all the death and misery that they have caused.
-Torture is considered a good method to turn to when needed information is not disclosed by terrorists.
-when tortured, a subject may supply information that was not even requested by the interrogator. This information is often incredibly useful.
Counter claims:
-When people are tortured, the information supplied is often falsified; the person undergoing torture does not have an ultimate goal of supplying accurate information
- main goal is simply to stop the torture in order to allow pain or stress levels to return to normal levels
- high rate of attrition among interrogators. It is hard to keep the interrogators psychologically sound when they partake in such difficult activities.
-Those undergoing interrogation and torture may consider themselves as heroes, not criminals. Interrogators who torture are perceived as dirty and immoral, making the subject even more resistant to yield information.
- torture causes an array of negative opinions. Those who undertake practices involving torture are perceived as evil, swaying public and international opinion and potentially causing a great number of negative effects.
Thesis
ReplyDeleteTorture is a heinous act that should not be committed under any circumstances because and of how immoral it is and once it is allowed the limits of when it can be used will become blurred.
-Extremely degrading
-Just creates more pain and hatred, we are just as bad if we torture
-Torture is often unsuccessful and provides unreliable information
-They is the possibility you are torturing innocent people
-Would you rather have torture and risk torturing innocents or just ban torture all together and avoid that scenario
-Takes a psychological toll on both parties involved
-But torturing can lead to intel and possibly save lives
-We can set limits and only the most evil people get tortured
-You can’t set limits, inevitably someone will get carried away
-Where do you draw the line
-If torture is an option people will push the limits and say it could save lives in the future or something just to have the chance of getting more information
Thesis: There are many of people who commit crimes who need to be punished. When torture is being implemented it should be a final resort for a life and death situation if necessary.
ReplyDeleteClaims:
Should be allowed when in emergency situation to save lives
Self defense right
Should only be used when necessary
Arguments:
Can it save more possibile lives at stake
Can possibly give us the needed information
Who gets to be the torturer
Evidence:
Repeat offenders may not look at current punishment as serious, and torture might be able to help us save more lives .
Can supply valuable information
Thesis: Torture should not be tolerated and must be unconditionally banned by law.
ReplyDeleteTorture is morally wrong
Human rights
Torture dehumanizes the subject, and the torturer
Is it correct to cause harm to other humans?
Torture is not effective
Under severe amounts of pain a victim might say anything just to get it to stop
Desensitizes humans
From personal experience, kids that play violent video games/watch violent shows are often desensitized to violence
Bagaric and Clarke compare torture to being like self defense, but these are two entirely different situations
When being attacked, or having pain inflicted on, people refer back to fight or flight. This situation quickly becomes a “in the moment” live or die scenario, therefore humans are forced to either fight or run. However with torture, people are choosing to inflict harm onto other human beings; torture is not an “in the moment” decision of life
Bagaric and Clarke also compare torture to post surgery pain
This is just another radical analogy
Patients sign off on the surgery and are well aware of the risks and pain they might feel
Surgeons are not torturing their patients to give them information, they are operating to save the patient and in the long term relieve them of pain
With torture, subjects may suffer from long term physical pain and/or mental pain
What happens if an innocent person gets accused and then is tortured?
Slippery Slope
Where do we draw the line on “ethical” torture?