Summarize the argument of the essay on pp. 196 - 200 of WFS. Start by mentioning the author and title and stating the main argument (its thesis). Then, outline the author's arguments for the thesis.
Don't state your responses to the essay yet. You'll get that chance when you write the essay.
Post the paragraph here by Sunday, 9-22 at 5 PM.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the essay, Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible, by Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke talk about torture and is it right to torture somebody if it saves a life. Bagaric and Clarke states that we should only use torture in the cases when it is the last measure we can do to save a life. Also, they mention “there is no logical or moral difference between this scenario and one where there is overwhelming evidence that a wrongdoer has kidnapped an innocent person and informs police that the victim will be killed by a co-offender if certain demands are not met”. Bagaric and Clarke have many points in their essay that people can agree with and disagree with. It all matters how you look at torture and if it is worth saving a life from it.
ReplyDeleteThe arguments made by the authors in “Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible” are for the greater good and you can’t make an omelet without cracking a few eggs. The 1st author explains himself with an analogy using police officers in a hostage crisis, as his primary example. In using said example he makes an argument for the greater good that yes the hostage might die but it is for the good of society at large. The author explains how the ban has made thing worse by driving it underground, and making it unregulated saying how now there is no oversight. The 2nd author puts forth a rebuttal of the arguments against torture, by basically deconstructing several of the primary arguments. Examples includes how society is not desensitize by torture, nor the torturer, as well as explain to err is human (Errare est humanis – Descartes) so sure some torturers will feel bad but it is fact of life. His primary 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 are both analogy based.
ReplyDelete“Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible,” an essay written by Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke. Both Bagaric and Clark believe that, “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.” Bagaric and Clarke believe that in the act of self-defense causing a small amount of pain on a person is acceptable. Some counterarguments that Bagaric and Clarke provide are: if torture is allowed the use of torture will increase significantly, torture will dehumanize society, and there is never a certain possibility that torturing will save an innocent life. An example of one of theses counterarguments is that if there was an, “absolute ban,” on torture it would force many countries to hide torturing from the public.
ReplyDeleteTorture, the purposeful harming of an individual or group for information, can be justified when an inoocent life is at risk, according to Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke. In their essay, “Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible”, they state that harming a wrongdoer is far more favorable than losing an innocent life. They address three supposed drawbacks of torture. The first is that allowing limited torture will eventually lead to widespread torture. However, Bagaric and Clarke report that torture is already widespread and legalizing a very controlled form will actually decrease torture around the globe. The second drawback is that results are not always guaranteed with torture. They respond to this by showing that when dealing with innocent lives at risk, situations are never fully understood so results aren’t guaranteed. The final drawback is that torture dehumanizes society. According to Bagaric and Clarke, taking any reasonable step to save innocents is more humane than letting innocents suffer. Also, the torturer will not be dehumanized because he or she is doing something appalling for the greater good. All in all, Bagaric and Clarke believe that the limited use of torture to save innocent lives is ethical and justifiable.
ReplyDeleteDalia Lorenzo
ReplyDeleteEnglish 105
Torture
In the essay “Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible” by Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke, come to the idea that there is a misconception towards torture. People don’t understand torture, because it has been known as a negative way of saving a life. They go one in the essay explaining, when it is presumably right to torture a person. Is it when there is hundreds of people at stake? Or your own self defense? They explain that it should be justifiable torture, and that it is acceptable to torture a person when there are many lives at stake. Also that the torturer, will not feel dehumanized because of the situation is morally acceptable. The argument of torturing should not be practiced is faulty because in situations, it is necessary.
Alexis Dryier
ReplyDeleteEnglish 105
9/21/13
In Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke’s article, “Torture: When The Unthinkable Is Morally Permissible,” they both argue that torture is not bad when it comes to saving others lives. Some examples are when there is a hostage situation, and the police must shoot the suspect in order to save the hostage. In this situation it is only desirable to violate the right of life. Logical or moral differences do not come into play here. Torture will not dehumanize society, the situations of it will not increase, and it can be used to save innocent lives. All of the criticism is misguided, because it has come to be known that life-saving torture will dehumanize the torturer. Some torturers have regretted what they have done, but it is not important in the author’s case. The authors also state that if people are not dehumanized by torture now, it will not make a difference in the future.
In Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke’s essay “Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible,” they talk about if torture is acceptable or not and explain the positives and negatives of it. The first point they make is that torture is acceptable if an innocent life in on the line. The authors 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.” If there is no other option, torture is an acceptable option. Next, they explain that torcher is widely used around the globe. “Amnesty International has recently reported that it had received during 2003, reports of torture and ill-treatment from 132 countries, including the United States, Japan, and France. Although it is illegal, many countries preform it. Next, they explain the points that torture will dehumanize society and that torturing will not promise a result. If the one being tortured does not talk, then there is nothing that can be done. Torture is a practice that has its positives and negatives and is very disputed between people.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Bagaric and Clark, the authors of "Torture: When The Unthinkable Is Morally Permissible,"torture should be accepted where evidence suggests it is the only means to saving an innocent life. In this way, torture not only saves lives, but is logical under certain circumstances. The two authors proceed to elaborate on three ideas commonly associated with torture. Firstly, they argue against the widespread belief that legalizing torture would create an increased use of torturous methods. They state that in fact, torture is already used in 132 countries today and the "flood gates have already opened." Secondly, they argue that torture will not dehumanize society, but will instead force individuals to seek justification for the "innocent" instead of the "wrongdoers." Thirdly and finally, Bagaric and Clark express that one can never be sure torture will result in saving an innocent life, and thus common sense must be used in each case, taking into account the evidence presented at the time.
ReplyDeleteMirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke , teachers at Deakin university in Australia, argue in their essay''from Torture:WHEN THE UNTHINKABLE IS MORALLY PERMISABLE'' , that torture is a moral way of saving lives__it's permissible when ever the evidence suggests that it was the only resort to save an innocent life at that moment. They justify this point by relating torture to the acceptable idea of self defense and how it is like saving another person instead of your self. If we consider a hostage taking scenario and a criminal is likely to kill an innocent person if certain demands aren't met. It's acceptable by every one if the police shoots and kills the wrongdoer to save the innocent. If in this case it's permissible to kill , it can't be wrong to torture to save a life. Despite the argument given, there are still opposing ideas that torture should not be legalized. The first one is that the citation in which it will be used will increase. The writers claim that torture is already widespread around the world and in fact the banning is keeping it under the radar. If legalized it will become more visible which might in some cases decrease it. The second counterargument is that it will dehumanize society. But they use the logic that supporting the right of a criminal is wrong compared to that of an innocent and if so , that society need of ethical rewriting. Thirdly,we can't be sure that we are saving lives by torturing. But we can't take the risk losing an innocent person;that is why we need to act on the best evidence at that time.
ReplyDeleteIn Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke’s article “Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible,” they say how torture is reasonable if it is for the right cause. They talk about how torturing someone in order to save an innocent life. They believe that doing harm to a wrongdoer to save the innocent is a reasonable thing. Morals change in every different torture situation. You have to think about both sides the one being tortured and the one being saved. Also they talk about how torture will dehumanize society. Over 100 different countries reported using the use of torture and it is more common than we think. Torture is something debated all the time and you have to decide if it is right to torture in order to save innocent people.
ReplyDeleteThe argument of torture was presented when Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke, wrote the essay "Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible." This essay asks and argues the question of, is it right to torture somebody if it saves a life. This question has been argued in America since before the opening of Guantanamo Bay. Bagaric and Clarke, state three common arguments presented related to the topic. the second half of the essay responds to these topics and explains that "It is indefensible to suggest that there should be an absolute ban on torture." Although torture may not have a 100% success rate, this essay explains that it is non permissible to eliminate the option of torture from our system.
ReplyDeleteMirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke present several arguements in TOURTURE: WHEN THE UNNTHINKABLE IS MORALLY PERMISSABLE,why it is acceptable and satisfactory that torture techniques are used against suspects in the “war on terrorism.” The authors state strong arguments for the continued use of torture, the first and notable being that it saves innocent lives. Bagaric and Clarke argue against the argument saying that if torture were legalized it would not make drastic changes because it is already illegally practiced in many countries including the United States. Another counterargument that the authors address is that torture is dehumanizing for a society but they reason that allowing an innocent victim to die is far more dehumanizing. Bargaric and Clarke conclude their argument by saying that society is already dehumanized by allowing innocent people to die while protecting the suspect from torture.
ReplyDeleteIn the essay "Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible," written by Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke, torture should only be used as a purpose to save people’s lives or to find information. This though, they explain, should only be used as a last resort. They place three counterarguments about torture: the legalization of torture will increase torture scenarios, it will dehumanize society and torture will not save everyone. These three counter argument, though, to them are minimal. Torture is already worldwide and maintaining it illegal will just hide the facts rather than stop it from happening. They also state that we are already dehumanized and it will not make a difference. The third point is that it might not save every person’s life, but it is better than letting an innocent person get hurt. An example they gave are surgeons. They are torturing innocent people daily, but it is to save their life. Do not think that Bagaric and Clarke are fully supportive of torture, but as they say in their essay, “Torture is permissible where the evidence suggests that this is the only means…”
ReplyDelete"Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissable," by Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke states both of their opinions on torture. They believe that it is acceptable to use torture under certain circumstances. However they do believe that torture " dehumanitation of society." According to the argument in the essay, torture is permissable if it is "saving the life of an innocent person," since it is being used in defense. However they also say the counter argument to this was that torture is not always the most reliable way to save a persons life but torture to "save an innocent person's life is justifiable." They also talk about how torture can not only affect the lives of the people being tortured but also the person doing the torturing. Much regret can come out of these situations and many come out believe their actions were "unjust." Overall torture is permissable in some situations but can also bring much pain and regret.
ReplyDeleteMirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke, the authors of Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible, questioned past events of torture by numerous governments and came to the conclusion that torture is only acceptable when it is "to save the life of an innocent person." In a hostage situation, an example used by Bagaric and Clarke, the police should shoot to harm or kill the person who is holding a hostage against his or her will is justified, equally, as torturing a kidnapper to receive information on the location of the victim. They believe it is wrong to even suggest a ban on the act torture. Bagaric and Clarke then went on to list the counterarguments that society would have against them: the slippery slope effect, dehumanizing society, and the uncertainty of the outcome, as being absurd. Both authors stand firmly with torture only in the means of saving a person(s) life and are full aware of what they have against them.
ReplyDelete"Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible," written by Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke argues the few, yet present circumstances in which torture is permissible. The duo do a thorough job of stating different counter arguments that our society and other countries could have against torture such as the argument that it will dehumanize society and how torture could never work all of the time, or the slippery slope effect. The authors insist however, that torture is morally permissible as long as it is saving the life of an innocent person, which could be viewed as defense. Lastly the authors conclude that torture is not the right way to go in every case, and society as well as government should take each case individually and make a decision based on whose lives it will be affecting.
ReplyDeleteThe essay, "Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible," by Mirko Bageric and Julie Clarke argues the controversial subject of when and if torture is moral. Both authors believe that torture could be moral in a certain situation. That situation is when it could result in saving one or more innocent peoples lives. They also argue against torture being moral by stating three counterarguments. The first one is torture is already used widely. The second is it could dehumanization to the person doing the torturing and our society. Lastly they state that torture may not be reliable. It may not result in the information needed to say peoples lives. Both authors seem to agree that the only time torture may be necessary is when it is done to save innocent lives.
ReplyDeleteMichael Mora Brenes
ReplyDeleteEnglish 105
According to Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke in their essay, “From Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible”, torture can be acceptable when it seeks to save an innocent life. They state that throughout the years “the belief that torture is always wrong” has been present in our society, due to the influence that mass media commentators have on people’s minds. However, the belief is something that needs to be changed in order to guard the inviolable right of self-defense. On one hand, in the first part of the essay the authors give very strong reasons of why torture should be permissible in some cases, and they also present the three main counterarguments concerning to torture. On the other hand, in the second part Bagaric and Clarke explain how causing pain to a suspect is less painful than many people feeling pain such as in being blown up. Finally, a very clear example they utilize to support their agreement with torture, is a kidnapping case where police have the right to kill the wrongdoer in order to save the hostage’s life.
Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke's essay, “From Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible” explains whether using torture to save innocents or gain information is moral or not. The two state their controversial opinion that torture is permissible in these situations. They explain how it is worth it to kill one to save many. A counter argument brought up is how the frequent use of torture will dehumanize people and the society, creating a more violent and dangerous nation. Over 100 countries are said to use torture, even while knowing it is iIllegal. Barbaric and Clarke show bother the positives and negatives of using torture to gain information, and the topic is still very controversial today.
ReplyDeleteIn the article "Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible," Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke argue that torture is acceptable when it saves an innocent life. Bagaric and Clarke argue against the fact that legalizing torture wouldn't make any big changes in the world. They believe this because torture is already being used in 132 countries. In the article, they point out that torture will dehumanize society. Therefore, people must make a decision between innocent life's and the wrongdoers. They believe torture is fine when saving a life or finding out important information. An example they state would be the idea of surgeons. They are constantly hurting people, although they are trying to save them at the same time. Torture may be accepted in some situations, but someone will always be getting hurt.
ReplyDeleteAaron Caputo
ReplyDeleteProfessor Burns
English 105.4
September 22, 2013
In the essay “from Torture: The Unthinkable is Morally Permissible” by Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke the topic of torture is discussed. There are two distinct parts to the essay, each of which are written by a different author. The main argument of Mirko Bagaric’s essay is whether inflicting pain on a wrongdoer to save the lives of innocent people is morally acceptable. He gives an example of a hostage situation where to save the life of an innocent person, harm might be the only means of diffusing the situation. He also explains how there should be no ban on torture. However three main counterarguments opposing the use of torture: the slippery slope argument, torture will dehumanize society, and the uncertainty torture will work. Julie Clarke wrote the second part of the essay. The second section is about whether torture will dehumanize society or not. She talks about a pain-minimization approach to where the least pain is caused in the overall situation. She makes the statement, “The individualistic account of morality represents a far greater threat to our “humanity” than torturing suspects to save lives.” She is saying that if the only thing our society cared about was saving lives we would be much better off. Clarke makes the point that torturing will not dehumanize our society. In addition Clarke makes the statement, “If we are not dehumanized now, torture will not make any difference.” She says this because we currently perform actions that are must worse than torture.
In Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke's essay "Torture: When The Unthinkable is Morally Permissible" they discuss torture from a pro point of view. From reading this essay, the reader will know that the authors are supporters of torture. They tell why torture is necessary and in what situations. Bagaric and Clarke also state common arguments to the subject, only to refute each one. They say that torture is necessary because it is self-defense and our self-defense laws covers another being. Only to argue the allowance of that by saying "Torture will dehumanize society." Then they refute the argument by stating that life-saving torture is a humane practice because you have to choose from the quantity of pain at a moral standing.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke in their essay "Torture: When The Unthinkable is Morally Permissible", torture can be demoralizing, but also is acceptable depending on the circumstance. Multiple examples were used by Bagric and Clarke, but their main argument was that if it were to save a life, it is permissible.They explain how 132 countries already perform torture and that even legalization would have minimal effects on all of society. Both pro and counter arguments for torture are presented, it's determining which argument is more justifiable. They say that torture may be unreliable and demoralizing, but it would be more non human to let an innocent person suffer. In the end, Bagaric and Clarke claim that torture is acceptable if your doing it to save an innocent person.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Mirko and Julie, “our reflex rejection of torture needs to be replaced by recognition that it can be a moral means of saving lives.” Torture is wrong however, at what means do the ends meet? If we are in a position to save others’ lives in a quick manner, then torture is a logical choice. Even torture still exists in countries today under the radar. If the public knew what was going on, word would spread like a wild fire. Saving a person to use torture is completely justifiable. Through this process important information is collected at one risk. That is taking a person’s life without being able to undo anything.
ReplyDeleteYou have the two paragraphs reversed, I think.
ReplyDeletePA#7 is the opportunity to summarize the entire essay. You've written PA#8 here.
ReplyDeleteIn Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke's essay, "TORTURE: WHEN THE UNTHINKABLE IS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE", the argument is presented that "Our reflex rejection of torture needs to be replaced by recognition that it can be a moral means of saving lives.". Torture is universally deplored, however this is an absolutist and short - sighted rhetoric, 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. In a hostage scenario, the police have the right to shoot the wrongdoer if they get a "clear shot", so they should be able to hurt an informant with a co-offender, because it is better to violate someone's physical integrity than an innocent person's right to live. There are three counterarguments to torture: 1) If you 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, 2) 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 3) We can never really be sure that torture will save an innocent's life; however, we need to base our judgement(s) on the evidence at the time. Torture used only to save an innocent's life is justifiable, which means that some of the recent punitive measure, where torture has been used, taken are reprehensible. The argument that condoning torture will brutalize and dehumanize society, which is flawed and mischaracterizes the motivation, is sometimes put as a stand alone argument, but can be joined with the slippery slope argument. Inflicting pain on people is bad, but when we must choose, we need to consider all of the agents in the dilemma, and choose whose pain will be the least, and which consequences are the lightest burden A society that stood by and refused to take steps to save innocent life would be vastly different from the one in which we currently live, and torture, apparently, would dehumanize the torturer. Torture does not dehumanize anyone (society, the torturer, etc.), and in fact, some torturers have even regretted their actions (though this is irrelevant to the proposal being presented).
ReplyDeleteSarah Shulman
ReplyDeleteParagraph #7
The idea that torture does not negatively affect human society is argued throughout Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke’s article, from Torture: When The Unthinkable Is Morally Permissible. This idea is defended by three main arguments, the first being the “slippery slope argument”. This meaning that if torture starts becoming acceptable for certain situations, then those situations for torture to be utilized would start to arise more and more. Creating loop holes, and excuses for torture to be used as a main tool in these certain situations, for example to save another individuals life, otherwise known as a “hostage situation”. The second argument is that torture will dehumanize society, an argument that the authors point out as a weak one when standing on its own. Arguers would say that torture would dehumanize the torturer creating a “moral nihilism” in them. The third argument is, ”we can never be totally sure that torturing a person will in fact result in us saving an innocent life”. A point that represents physically (and emotionally) harming a person and the risk that the information that is drawn out could be false, or maybe the person being tortured is wrongly accused of whatever it is they are being tortured for. They end the article stating that if people today can allow innocent people to die, what makes that so different from inflicting physical harm to gather information. Simply, ”if we are not dehumanized now, torture will not make a difference”.
Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke’s article, from Torture: When The Unthinkable Is Morally Permissible, argues that torture is in no way a good thing and affects our society is a horrible way. One way he defends this argument is by addressing that once people think it's alright to use certain forms of torture we will find them more commonly used even when they are not necessary for a situation. It would be used to persuade people that it's not a horrible thing by showing that it saves lives such as in a hostage situation. Another argument given by Bagaric and Clarke is that through torture humans will be dehumanized and not think and act fully as they once did due to possibly post traumatic stress disorder or simply just an injury acquired when being tortured. Both the tortured and torturer come out of the situation harmed in one way or another due to regrets or thoughts of why did the torture ever happen and was it really necessary. The final argument that the authors gave to support their views on torture is that "we can never be totally sure that torturing a person will in face result in us saving an innocent life." This statement shows that in situations such as a person being captured in a hostage situation even though extreme pain is afflicted to the tortured to extract information we never know whether they will break and release what we need to know to save a person's life. In cases like this the torture did not provide any positive outcome in the end all it did was dehumanized all who were involved in the torturing. Another situation is also that the tortured person was never even involved or had any knowledge of whatever they were being tortured for therefore is not that torturing an innocent person when you did not know for sure that they knew anything. The authors wrap up everything by proving their view that torture is not going to improve anything, and that it only has more negative affects than positive ones in the long run.
ReplyDelete