Okay, let's try this process again.
Read the essay on pp. 196 - 199 in WFS. Think in a systematic way about whether you agree or disagree with the writers' main argument (thesis) and the sub-arguments that support their thesis. Blog some notes here.
Bring notes to class on Friday, 9-20, and blog them here by Thursday 9-19 at 5 PM.
- Anybody is capable of torture even the nicest of people
ReplyDelete- War Torture vs. Personal Torture
- This can always depend on the person's morals. Whats the right thing to do even though you breaking your morals.
- Is it right to torture a person to save an innocent person?
- Right vs. Wrong
- "Torture in order to save an innocent person is the only situation where it is clearly justifiable" I don't know if I agree with this point, because is it right to torture the criminal, even though you are committing a crime too. Depends on the situation and depends on the person's morals who is torturing the criminal.
- Pain Meter
- Can pain really make people talk?
- Amputations
- Self Defense vs. Torture
1.Toture is permissible where the evidence suggests that this is the only means, due to immediacy of the situation
ReplyDelete2. Torture will dehumanize society
3. Never sure that torturing someone will save innocent lives
-Physical pain can help reduce mass killings
-Paragraph 16
-surgeons try not to inflict pain, they try to save lives-a torturer tries to save lives too.
-Torture is used widely, despite the absolute legal prohibition against it
ReplyDelete-Torture will dehumanize society
-We can never be totally sure that torturing a person will in fact result in us saving an innocent life
-We must choose between who will bear the unavoidable pain
-We need to take a pain-minimization approach
-Torture and self defense
-All affected parties must be given equal consideration
Main points:
ReplyDelete-torture can be a moral means of saving lives
-torture is allowed when it is the only way to save the life of an innocent person
-there should not be a ban on torture
-torture will not dehumanize society
-there is no slippery slope effect
-“Life-saving torture is a human practice”
-The pain that would be felt by the relatives of the victims outweighs the physical pain of the suspect(s)
-torturing does not effect our society’s humanity
-the torturer will not be dehumanized
-“If we are not dehumanized now, torture will not make a difference
- torture is used widely despite the absolute legal prohibition -> just because torture is used doesn't make it justifiable, America does not need to join the band wagon
ReplyDelete-torture is permissible, to save the life of an innocent person ->a system of how valuable someone life is will be created. If it was a citizen vs. the president the idea of jumping to using torture will be thought out more carefully in terms of importance
-torture in order to save someone's life.... -> recent cases of torture and assuming past cases, the U.S. tortured it prisoners to get more information to find someone, not to save a life.
- the effects of torture are felt by both the victim and the torture, is the human mind strong enough to handle such gruesome acts?
-torture doesn't dehumanize the human race because it is not open to the public, and the government doesn't have to disclose such information ( failure of checks and balance)
• Civil wars and terrorism have caused the prevalence of torture. (There many ways of torture that sometimes we don’t even recognize them as real torture). It is totally prohibited.
ReplyDelete• Mass media help to point torture as a wrong thing. “It is indefensible that there should be a ban on torture”.
• “Torture is the permissible where the evidence suggests that this is the only means to save the life of an innocent person”.
• It is defendable in cases that involve self-defense. For example: when police are trying to rescue a hostage from a wrongdoer, it is desirable for police to shoot the wrongdoer.
• He points 3 counterarguments about torture.
1. If torture is regulated by the authorities, it will cause an increment on the torture rates. Example…
2. Torture will dehumanize society. Make a choice between Innocents life and wrongdoers’.
3. Torturing a person does not ensure that an innocent life is being saved.
4. “Torture in order to save an innocent person is the only situation where it is clearly justifiable”.
-belief that torture is wrong is based on alarmist comments.
ReplyDelete-"torture is permissable 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."
-hostage scenario
3 arguments:
1.legalization will increase torture scenarios
2. dehumanization of society.
3. not everyone will be saved
-inflicting pain in people is bad... but no way to rank between person giving vs person recieving the pain
- pain to save a life have existed for years, ie surgeons.
- torture should be to help or defend a "good" person from a "bad" person.
-acceptable if help prevent a bigger event
-we are already dehumanized, therfore torture should not make a difference
-war torture
ReplyDelete- universally deplored
-small level of harm on a wrongdoer and saving an innocent person
- all about morals
-save the innocent
-certain situations change peoples morals
-torture is happening everywhere
-dehumanize society
-victims pain outweighs suspects
-ultimate goal is to save a life
-already dehumanized
-war on terrorism
ReplyDelete-must fight fire with fire
-torture permissible where evidence suggests it is only means
-it isn't the best option, but when only option, it should be used
-slipperly slope effect should not be a concer
-132 countries alread use torture
-torture dehumanize society?
-torturing from an uncontrolled emotional impluse is inhuman
-using torture as a means to save lives and solve problems us rational, and very "human"
-both parties (the wrong doer, and hostage) must be taken into consideration
-banning torture is a blanket agreement, and very assumptive.
-we do "unethical" things everyday for the common good ex. doctors, policemen
-torture is okay if innocent life is at risk
ReplyDelete-Hostage scenario vs. torture (where is direct threat)
-legalizing torture won’t increase the instances, but decrease b/c
a. there is already illegal torture
b. legalizing would bring illegal torture to a halt and would only be used rarely
-torture won’t dehumanize society b/c
a. puts right of innocent above right of criminal
b. same as self-defense
-torture is risky b/c don’t know if innocent is really at risk
a. same as hostage, gun might be empty
-physical pain is bad, but pain of innocent outweighs pain of criminal
-critics put interests of suspect before the innocent
a. same as rescuers not rushing and taking risks
-surgeons vs. torturer, parents smack kids
-taking steps to save innocents is worth hurting others, no matter what
-Almost universally deplored
ReplyDelete-torture is only acceptable when evidence proves that its the only way to handle the situation.
-Hostage wrongdoer deserves torture in most situations
-indefensible to claim torture should have an absolute ban
-In hostage situation its universally accepted to end the wrongdoers life.
-Three main counter arguments
1. Toture is permissible where the evidence suggests that this is the only means, due to immediacy of the situation
2. Torture will dehumanize society
3. Never sure that torturing someone will save innocent lives
-does not believe in torture
ReplyDelete-acceptable if saving an innocent person
-"dehumanize society
-saving innocent life
-only justifiable if saving an innocent persons life
-casing people to suffer is bad
- some torturers have "regretted their actions"
-dehumanization
-can change morals
• Torture roots from the “war on terrorism”
ReplyDelete• Could mean self-defense?
• It is okay in a hostage scenario to use torture
• Counterarguments:
o If torture keeps being permitted, the circumstances in which it used for will become worse.
o Will eventually dehumanize society
o Cannot be sure that torture will ultimately save someone’s life.
• The dehumanizing comments are not accurate
• Torture and surgery are not similar
• Surgery is meant to benefit the person to whom the pain is being inflicted upon
• Torture can save lives
The basic premise that 'torture always wrong is wrong'
ReplyDeletesupports with evidence
-in hostage crisis, a police offer can shoot even if there is a chance of the hostage being killed, with the abductor make unreasonable demands
-uses examples of poor slipperly slope, banning made worse as now its underground and unregulated
-most say it is immoral don't think on the large level
-dehumanization of torture
-evidence to contradict that, and pain is just absolute evil
-pain on one better than pain on many
-critics on think of sub not society
-society built never harm, rescuers will have a harder time
-dehumanize torture, evidence contradicts
-in addition says many regret it, well in general nothing is ever 100% so that'll always be case
Torture Notes
ReplyDelete* There is a mix up of the misconception of torture.
- Torture is the best way in specific situations.
: Wrong doers that take a hostage. Killed by default.
: How can the two scenarios be different.
- Counterargument:
: We will become dehumanized
: WE don't know if torturing people will get answers.
- Life-Saving torture is a human practice
: we need to choose form an innocent and a wrong doer
: No torture, no security
: Some people that torture, don't become inhuman.
Under what circumstance should torture be permitted?
ReplyDeletedehumanization?
Post traumatic stress
How many lives, and what lives would be saved (ideally and realistically)
What is considered enough evidence to prove torture is the right choice
What affect would legalization have on citizens views of the government.. would "marketing" or education of it need to be given to get the citizens on board.
Self defense/torture
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete• Torture should only be used when
ReplyDeleteo there is an imminent threat
o no other means to alleviate the situation
o suspect known to have relevant information
• “morally permissible where it is the only means available to save innocent lives”
• What will happen to those who are in charge of carrying out the torture?
• How is it justifiable for people to torture other people?
• How far should we go to acquire the relevant information?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy torture can be moral
ReplyDelete-Saving a life of an innocent person.
-Right of self defense: also applies when defending another
-more reasonable if the person being tortured has a history of violence
- may be morally wrong to torture, but also morally wrong not to save a life when you have a chance.
-impossible to rank one persons pain to the pain of others
Why it is morally wrong
-Dehumanizing society.
- Cant be completely sure that torturing would result in saving a life
-Desensitizes people to the torturing of others
-It can help people by saving lives.
ReplyDelete-the recent events about war on terror showed it's helpful.
-torture is acceptable if it is the only way to save a life.
To show it's ok, we can look at the idea of self-defense, it's the same thing but we're defending a lot of people. If we were to let terrorists and kidnappers have their interests respected , then we would be helping them. And it should be allowed in certain situations.
And there are 3 ideas that contradict the above statement:-
1)if it's allowed in some instances , it would increase. And the writer argues that torture already exists but hidden and if it's legalized, it'll be more visible when ever it's being done and this can actually decrease it.
2) it might dehumanize society and writers argue this by saying that it's best for society to allow the rights of wrongdoers to be taken than protected.
3)torturing might not even save life at all. But it's advisable to act what ever manner is necessary is required in that instance.
• Torture can come from many forms.
ReplyDelete• Who is in a position to justify if torture is right or wrong?
• Torture vs. self defense
• Even though law prohibits torture, there are still people who practice it.
• Even though torture is effective in some cases, at what means to an end is it acceptable?
• There is a big difference in torturing the innocent and guilty.
• Who are we saving when we torture someone?
1) Dehumanizing
ReplyDelete2) war torture against personal torture
3) post traumatic stress
4) saving innocent life's
5) torture routes from the war on terrorism
6) right and wrong
7) pain-minimization approach
-It can help people by saving lives.
ReplyDelete-the recent events about war on terror showed it's helpful.
-torture is acceptable if it is the only way to save a life.
-Dehumanizing society.
- Cant be completely sure that torturing would result in saving a life
-Desensitizes people to the torturing of others
-can change morals
-It can help people by saving lives.
ReplyDelete-the recent events about war on terror showed it's helpful.
-torture is acceptable if it is the only way to save a life.
-Dehumanizing society.
- Cant be completely sure that torturing would result in saving a life
-Desensitizes people to the torturing of others
-can change morals
-torture is fine as long as it is saving an innocent life
ReplyDelete-self defense
-person being tortured likely deserves their torturing
-torture is occurring more than you'd think
-war torture
-change in morals in certain situations
-dehumanize and right vs. wrong
-pain meter
-PTSD (for both involved)
-regret
-
The Case for Torture...
ReplyDeleteMoral rejection of torture needs to be replaced by recognition that it can save lives.
Though torture is formally abhorred, recent events stemming from the "war on terrorism" have highlighted it's prevalence.
The idea that torture is always wrong is misguided and ignorant, yet it plays a humongous role in how we, the USA, shape our policies, and results in enormous injustice and suffering at home and beyond our borders. It is all right to torture someone as long as you're saving a life.
One example is the hostage situation, where police have the right to shoot if they get a "clear shot".
There is no argument for putting a ban on torture, because there is no difference between the above situation, and one where there is a co-offender.
If we can violate the right to life of the aggressor, we can violate his physical integrity. The
The first of three arguments countermanding torture is that once you start allowing torture, it becomes the norm.
However, the use of torture is already widespread in 132 countries, however certain rare legislation would reduce instances of it.
The second argument against torture is that it will dehumanize society, but any nation that would not harm a wrongdoer to save an innocent's life need some serious ethical rewiring.
The third argument is that we don't know if torture will actually save an innocent's life, but we need to judge base on the evidence at the time.
Because the only permissible use of torture is to save someone's life, the recent acts of torture to gather information are reprehensible.
Life-Saving Torture Is a Humane Practice..
The claim that torture will dehumanize and brutalize society is wrong, because its narrow and mischaracterizes the proposal.
Sometimes this argument is put off as a stand-off argument, but sometimes is joined with the slippery - slope argument.
Inflicting pain on people is bad, but if you must, choose to inflict the pain on the person who it's going to hurt the least, namely, the suspect.
When deciding who to inflict the pain on,all agents, or parties, must be considered, because sometimes the consequences of inflicting pain on others beat out the consequences of not doing so.
Our society would be vastly different if we didn't contend with wrongdoers and situations as we do, approaching moral nihilism.
One argument against torture is that it will dehumanize the torturer, but this is not the case since people have been hurting each other for use with out any significant moral bruises.
Despite the ideologies, and perceptions of someone(s) at the time, hurting someone, or persons, is bad, no matter what the circumstance.
The argument of dehumanization against torture is contradictory, because allowing innocent people to be killed dehumanizes society more than physically persuading somebody won't, all nations allow higher levels of harm than torture, and if we are not dehumanized now, torture will make no difference.
Sarah Shulman
ReplyDeleteParagraph #7 (notes)
-no exceptions to torture, yet there are just causes for torture
→ OK when used to “save a life of an innocent person” (hostage scenario)
-3 counterarguments for “hostage situation”
1) “slippery slope argument”
→ if torture starts becoming allowed for certain cituations, then more situations for torture to be acceptable will arise
2)”torture will dehumanize society”
→desensitized by the ability to afflict pain unto another human being
→worried that society leans towards the interest of the “wrongdoers” or bad people, over that of the “innocent” or ethically/morally driven people
3)”we can never be totally sure that torturing a person will in fact result in us saving an innocent life”
→in a hostage situation the person trying to save the innocent life would be resulting to torture, taking the risk of false information and stuff like that
-Torture dehumanizing society is a weak argument on its own
→narrow point of view
→all affected parties SHOULD have equal consideration, torture is unequal in benefit to both parties
-when critically thinking about torture people tend to forget the interests of the “suspect”
→represents the moral interests of “humanity”, not the individual
*without this view there would be less emphasis on public safety of the people (police, firefighters, ambulances, security checks)
→”approaching moral nihilism” (the belief that there is no moral or ethicality)
-torturing will dehumanize the torturer
→evidence says differently, surgeons inflict pain all the time and they are doing what is best for the patients health
→unjust cause (personal moral opinion of the torturer)
-if allowing innocent people to die everyday is morally just, and does not dehumanize society, than inflicting physical pain to persuade the tongue of the person who is being tortured
→”if we are not dehumanized now, torture will not make a difference”