Is Torture Ever Ok? Essay

A lot of multiplication in these scenarios there ar no early(a)wise options and anguish whatsoever ace is the only elbow room to cling fast results before it is too late. I am a utilitarian speak uper and I weigh in the wideest corking for the around battalion. If a lot of stacks lives are at stake in a situation and back tooth be pull roundd because of angiotensin converting enzyme criminals pain consequently torturous is the way to go. I view that worrying piece of ass be chastely justified in many extreme raft and by adjust distorted shape by law then it could benefit our society. My first assertion impart show how aberration can be utilize to help stop a bank highwayman who has many hostages.Suppose, the authorities hold cancelleded one of the conspirators of the bank marauder and they werent dispiritting anything out of him. The bank depredator told the authorities that if they didnt get him a sheet out of the coun fork up then he would di smount violent remnant hostages. The authorities dont spang where the bank highwayman is or the hostages. The bank robber declares they only give birth fifteen minutes to fare him a plane before he scoops killing the hostages. The authorities could ache the conspirators and get the info they carry to keep open the hostages and arrest the bank robber or they could let the hostages die.This is why in my opinion badgering is incorruptly justified in this situation. The first argument I utilise shows a real workout of how torturing can save volume lives, arrest a criminal, and pr til nowt to a greater extent people from decease in the short and long run. A stakeholder from my prevail paper, Mirko Bagaric, make with me. Bagaric is a professor of law at Deakin University and according to him, anguish is justifi able-bodied when used as an information gathering technique to avert great venture (Bagaric, p. 264). In my example, it obviously agrees with Bagarics recountm ent. in that evaluate are many variables that go into whether or non torturing soul in a stark situation is permissible. Bagaric wrote a list of these variables 1. the number of lives at risk 2. the immediacy of the harm 3. the availability of different means to acquire the information 4. the level of wrongdoing of the agent and 5. the likelihood that the agent roleplayually does dish out the relevant information. I trust that if these were the five rules in a law that correct badgering so we could set a compromise with people who think torture should never happen.The biggest reason I view torturing is ok in harm-based situations is because it is our moral art to save other peoples lives. In my opinion, some moral duties everywhereride others. The moral responsibleness to save thousands of people overrides the moral duty to respect someones physical body, who is holding information from you because they want all those people to die. Everyone mustiness agree that the roughly basic and important human mature is the right to life. If you have a chance to save thousands of lives and torturing is your only option then the extract is obvious. Torturing must be ok in some circumstances, in order to save lives.I am not saying that people should torture a person to death because that violates their right to live. But, if the torture only causes some physical pain to one person to save many lives then torture should be morally and legally permissible. In Heinz site, whenever torturing someone there should of all time be a doctor there to make certainly the person existence tortured isnt killed. I do not think torturing is always ok and it should always should be the last option, just when worsened comes to worse livery thousands of people is worth torturing a person who is ok with those people dying. mint who oppose torture at all propagation are deontologists. Deontologists believe that general rules and protects must be respected regardless o f the outcome. According to them steady a savage terrorist who wants to kill their family and friends should not be harmed because it is immoral to inflict physical pain on someone. They believe that you should never bend the rules even if it causes death. whatsoever of them believe that if you allow torturing that you allow for start down a slippery dispose. For example, this slippery tilt could lead up to killing a captive to avoid a bomb going off and killing thousands.And, what if, you killed the prisoner and he or she didnt give up any information. The slippery slope of sinning leads to more than sinning according to deontologists. For them, torture promotes violence and sin. Although, I do agree with some of the components from the other sides argument it doesnt change the fact the torture is needed in some malicious cases. I agree that you should not cause another(prenominal) person physical harm, notwithstanding if harming this person can saves lives I believe it is morally ok. the great unwashed have a greater moral obligation to preserve our species and defend our family and country.If physically harming one person can help us do this then torturing should be bankable. Opponents to torture alike stated that we provide go down a slippery road to sin and killing people being tortured, but I disagree. I believe that we are rational enough to be able to torture someone and keep them alive. When torturing someone I think it would only be acceptable if a doctor was present to make sure the person be tortured didnt die. Also, I believe we have to be one-hundred-percent positive the prisoner has the information we want, otherwise torturing them would be wrong.I know that torturing is wrong in most cases but in should be acceptable in others. Bagaric states that A legal framework should be establish to properly accommodate these situations, (Bagaric 274). If torture were to be regulated instead of prohibited, it would bring out greater good then i t would harm. Torture happens whether it is prohibited or not. If we compel the idea of a torture justify at least we are stating what we are doing instead of hiding it. The only way to get a torture warrant would be to meet the five variables Bagaric wrote.Doctors being present when a prisoner is being tortured in any case insures that his or her life is being watched over carefully. In this example it shows that torture can be regulated to insure we dont occur down a slippery slope and that it will help save many people in the future. My second argument shows that regulation of torture is discontinue than prohibiting it. In my opinion, admitting what you do is better than lying slightly it. Torture is outlawed in Israel yet they have been criticized all over the world for torturing people, (Dershowitz).They are being hypocritical. It is a known fact that the join States tortures people secretly to find live information. Although they try to be secretive round it, they usu ally get caught. It would be better if everyone knew that torture does happen and has to sometimes. I agree and wish that we never had to do it, but sometimes to save lives you have. By regulating torture, people will not be hypocritical about it and there will be rules pertaining to the issue. An obvious protestation to this argument is again, the slippery slope.People against torture believe if you open the door to torture, even if you regulate it, you will lead to more and more torture. They say even if you torture is needed in extreme situations that make it legal will allow torture in less desperate situations. Again, I can disprover this objection of the slippery slope for regulating torture. counterbalance off, torture is already used even though it is legally prohibited. I believe making regulating torture will actually decrease it. People will have to get torture warrant and we should make very sure those are trying to get.Second, Bagaric and Clarke say, that there is no evidence to suggest that the rule-governed violation of fundamental human interests will needs lead to a violation of fundamental rights where the per-conditions for the performance are clearly delineated and controlled. For example, we use the death penalty in the U. S. , but we still value life and havent been putting people to death unless it was for a legitimate reason. Religions such as the Muslim-American religion state, It is irreligious, immoral, and unethical(Rashid 1).They state their religious write up is full of stories demanding that we condemn abuse and torture. The Muslim-Americans say that, The Prophet Moses sacrificed his royal position to stop an act of torture (Rashid1). They state, the Prophet Muhammad forbade the mistreatment of prisoners. Torture offends Muslim-Americans because it is immoral nature. They state that the torture of human beings at the behest of the American governance must be condemned. They say that, Simply because another country allow s torture does not mean we should assist and utilize the moral weakness of others (Rashid 1).They explain that when we ratify the Convention Against Torture President Ronald Reagan said, We clearly put forward United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice regrettably still prevalent in the world today. They also applaud President Obama for shining light on these shameful practices. Finally they said, We cannot be deaf to the vocalisation of justice, but must establish it. Torture is not just (Rashid 2). The Muslim Religion has many legitimate points, but I disagree that torture is always wrong and immoral. Sometimes bad things can be used for the greater good.My male parent who was a old geezer of the Air Force knows how important it is to get vital information out of enemies. My father believes, like Bagaric, when many lives are at risk and the only way to save someone is torture them then you should do what is necessary. My dad has been through torture traini ng. My dad states that, if the other side is going to torture us then we have to have to learn the same tactics. My father said in the interview, that torture should always be the last option, but when things are turning for the switch then sometimes you just have to do what you have to do. I agree with my father and I think that even torture may be immoral by itself it can be used to help people who are going to be killed which makes it moral. In conclusion, I believe prohibition of torture is wrong and that there needs to be a regulating law that allows torture so we can gather vital information. If there are more instances where thousands of peoples lives are at risk and there is no other way of saving their lives then to torture someone then we most allow it. It should be morally acceptable to save peoples lives and I believe a peoples lives are worth more than an evil persons physical pain.