Take one of Bagaric's and Clarke's sub-arguments and respond to it. You may want to confirm. In that case, you can do the writers some good by providing evidence for their point of view. But first you must summarize their claim and expand upon it.
You may want to refute. In that case, first summarize their argument on that argument, state your own claim in response, and then provide evidence for your claim.
Please post your response by Tuesday 9-24-13 at 5 PM so that we can talk about them in class on Wednesday.
In Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible, Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke states “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 innocent person.” It is morally wrong to torture a human being to receive information to save life. What right does the person who is torturing the victim have? Whoever is torturing the victim is also committing a crime by doing this. It does not matter who the person is, he should have no right to torture another human under any situation. Lets say my wife is being tortured, because the person who is torturing wants to find out information about myself. I figure out that this is happening. I go find the person that tortured my wife and I torture him. Do I have the right to do this? No, two wrongs don’t make it right.
ReplyDeleteBoth Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke explain their view on torture in their essay, Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible. They believe that If you are saving the life of an innocent person, torture then becomes permissable. This being said they also showed a few counterarguments about how torture can dehumanitize society. I believe that torture is needed when innocent people are at risk. I do not thing torture should be used all the time. There are cases where torture is appropiate and cases where torture is also inappropiate. I do believe that it does affect more than the person being tortured. Is the information worth it enough to cause pain and suffering to both the torturer and the person being tortured?
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to torture, critics argue that it is an unreliable source of information. However, Bagaric and Clarke state that this is the case for almost any situation dealing with innocent lives at risk. They give the analogy of a criminal holding a gun to a hostage’s head. The gun may be empty but any means to secure the innocent life is worth the risk. This is a weak analogy because torture consistently gives unreliable information. According to a report in the New York Times, the FBI denounced the use of torture because “these harsh methods produce unreliable information from people who will say anything to stop the pain.” Interrogators are searching for information with little to no background information on what could be true and false. As long as the person being tortured says something that sounds good, even if it’s a lie, the interrogation would stop, along with the excruciating pain. Such an easy escape produces very little truth. As a result, torture would most likely result in a futile rescue mission.
ReplyDeleteIn the article "Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible," Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke state that torture is acceptable when it is saving an innocent life. They give an example using surgeries. Surgeons hurt people every single day, but in the end they are only trying to help them out. In my opinion, torture is not acceptable under any circumstances. For example, if someone is being tortured, is it right for me to go and start hurt the torturer? No, it will just make the situation worse than it already was. I understand the idea of saving the person being tortured, but there are other ways of doing so. You can't fight fire with fire, everything with just burn.
ReplyDeleteAaron Caputo
ReplyDeleteProfessor Burns
English 105.4
September 24 2013
If you were in a position where your choices were either to die, or have someone do anything in their power to make sure you live, what would you choose? Bagaric and Clarke discuss how torture protects our right to self-defense. They make the statement, “The reason that torture in such a case is defensible and necessary is because the justification manifests from the closest thing we have to an inviolable right: the right to self-defense.” Every human being has the right to self-defense and if torture, at a last resort, is a way to satisfy that right, then let it be so. The innocent person has the right to be protected. The Ohio Attorney General explains that, for self-defense, you can use deadly force to protect another person if you reasonably and honestly believe the person that you are protecting is in immediate danger of serious bodily harm or death and that deadly force is the only way to protect the person from that danger. In the case of torture, the person doing the torturing is trying to defend innocent people from being killed by torturing a wrongdoer to gain information that could save lives. Therefore, since the act of torture can help protect people’s lives, it is considered self-defense.
Bagaric and Clarke further explain the reasoning for believing that torture is permissible only when it used to save a person(s) life by comparing it to the act of pain surgeons inflict on their patients. Until the discovery of anesthetic, painkillers, “surgeons would perform procedures that caused almost unthinkable levels of pain.” According to Bagaric and Clarke, surgeons have “sustained no demonstrable moral bruises” because they are saving someone’s life in addition to making them healthier. They are making a positive impact on our society and the lives of others. I, on the other hand, do not think that comparing the jobs of surgeons to the morally unjust acts of torturers is even permissible. Without surgeons or other medical professionals our lives would be completely inverted in terms of what we could physically and mentally take on as humans. The athletes we watch for entertainment would be less likely to recover from injuries and the construction workers who build the houses we live in, the buildings we work in, and the malls we shop in won’t be able to build more structures because of their pains that can’t be fixed. Surgeons and other professionals are a necessity of life torturers are not.
ReplyDeleteIn “Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible,” by Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke, they make it clear that they take the side that torture is acceptable in some cases. Bagaric and Clarke 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.” Under the right circumstances torture is by all means acceptable. Torture can be harsh and many people are against the practice, but under reasonable circumstances, it is an acceptable act. If something can be prevented and especially if it means something as important as saving innocent lives, then why wouldn’t we do everything in our will to stop it before it happens? Also, torture is practiced all around the world. It is stated in the essay that 132 countries around the world torture. It would be almost impossible to stop torture worldwide. Lastly, we should feel no sympathy for the one being tortured because they are most likely directly involved in the situation. If they are in our custody and if we have full knowledge and proof that they were involved in the crime, then we should find out everything that we can before the situation gets worse. If they are unwilling to give us the information that we need, then they put the torture on themselves. Torture is a practice that should be reasonably practiced around the world.
ReplyDeleteThe essay: “Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible, explains the reasoning behind torture and discusses when it is appropriate. It's authors, Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke, take a firm stance that torture is, in fact, acceptable when it is clear it is the only option in a particular circumstance. I completely agree with this. For any individual with normal human emotions and empathy, it is natural that torture is a tough thing to consider logically, without letting human nature push us to believe it is wrong in all cases. And, although it has proven to be unreliable, which Bagaric and Clarke's critics argue, this does not change the point that if it is done the right way, it can be affective, helpful, and in some cases, life-saving. Two main reasons torture can be so unreliable are, for one thing, it may be being used as a first-option, instead of a last resort, as it should be. As for the second reason, often times interrogators are looking for information blindly, with not even an educated guess on what could be true or false, and if the person being tortured is aware of this, he or she has no reason to give a factual response. I think if this changed, and the interrogators were informed as much as they possibly could be, torture would be significantly more effective.
ReplyDeleteIn their essay "Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible," Bagaric and Clarke discuss the argument that allowing torture would lead to a dehumanized society. It is a common concern that condoning violent acts will result in a more violent and irrational society. The authors argue against this claim, stating that by banning torture, we are "favor[ing] the interests of wrongdoers over those of the innocent," which is itself very irrational. As much as the word 'torture' comes with it's stigmas, we must look beyond this and realize torture can no longer be considered an irrational act of uncontrolled aggression. It must be seen as the rational and logical means to saving lives and solving problems. Accepting this kind of torture is in fact not dehumanizing society, but civilizing it.
ReplyDeleteTorture, is it immoral, or moral as put forth in the article “Torture: when the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible” the authors Bagaric and Clark argue for the latter? By extension is it always a moral wrong to do so? The 1st author starts that the latter is not the case and proceeds to defend his position why with analogy. The 2nd author puts forth a rebuttal of why torture is wrong. Their basic position is ‘torture is not always wrong’ I do agree with, it’s the reasons they put forward I have trouble with. The 1st author in his analogy says that in summary, if in the hostage situation, a police officer is to shoot even if the hostage is in danger, boils down to the greater good argument. In the 1st case uses the analogy to explain the argument is that torturing is just another tool in our arsenal to save innocents by the gathering of information. However, switch innocents with soldiers and gathering of information with killing. What do we have then? An acceptable use for weapons of mass destruction, someone will say, that is a non sequitur, but take a step back, ask yourselves why is torture acceptable? It is just another tool in our arsenal for the gathering of information. It has some moral liabilities of course, and is commonly looked down upon, but what are weapons of mass destruction in that case, than just tools for the art of killing? Is exactly what weapons of mass destruction are, so if by deploying nuclear armaments we can save the lives of our boys in uniform why not? If the acceptable excuse we are using for torture is the preservation of the men and women in the home front, it is the same thing; both are tools being used to save our people in exchange with a loss in morality. The 2nd author did not use examples and his argument premise is poor, especially when he takes an egregious example of 1st responders. He says our way of life could not function without someone getting hurt, comparing torture to 1st responders shoving someone out of the way is very different, likewise with surgeons vs. torturers. They are going to save lives while torturers could well be nothing. However all this said, there always comes those times when lines in the sand must be crossed, and all other resources have been used up, then and only then should torture be used. In the same manner nuclear weapons are the tools of last resort, so is torture, it should be used as the 1st tool.
ReplyDeleteBageric and Clarke suggest that torture would only be acceptable in the case that an innocent life would be saved. I would have to refute this statement by saying torture is not necessary no matter the situation. For one, torture is morally wrong and can cause extreme mental issues to the person doing the torturing. An example of an issue would be PTSD. Also, it has been proven that torture does not even work in gathering information. According to "The Tortured Brain," in "Newsweek," stress caused by torture may cause impaired cognitive function. So, what's the point of causing physical and mental pain to an individual if there is no gain from it? Conclusively, torture has been used in the past, but I believe that it should be outlawed.
ReplyDeleteBagaric and Clarke make an argument that there are no exceptions to torture, but in my mind I believe there are. I can understand that torture is debatable when there is a kidnapping or hostage situation. However, it is still wrong and misguided in American’s minds. The first thing that I think of when it comes to torture is those men and women who serve our country, and get kidnapped by other countries in war. The groups that they get kidnapped by put up videos of them in the worst conditions. Think of what those soldiers have to go through, being on the battlefield everyday is worse already. That’s what I call torture, and that’s not something that can be forgotten about. So the question is, is torture okay then?
ReplyDeleteIn Bagaric and Clarke's essay "Torture: When the unthinkable is Morally Permissible" They bring up the counter argument that torture being continually accepted in our government will surely dehumanize society. This argument is indefensible. Claiming that torture is never a necessity is simply false. Torture is one of the only ways that this country has received information in our very successful history. This is not to say that it has a 100% success rate but it is one of the only options we have in certain situations discussed in the essay. This Country has used torture for hundreds of years and gotten positive results. Has our society dehumanized at all? It is a harsh way of getting information, but it is also completely necessary.
ReplyDeleteDalia Lorenzo
ReplyDeleteEnglish 105
Torture
Bagaric and Clarke, both state in their essay “Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible” that torture is necessary when there is a life in stake. I do not think that it is right to torture people in any situation. There are many different tasks to do before we should torture someone, in the end we might not get the information needed. All of the examples that the essay states, “Torture is morally permissible where it is the only means available to save innocent lives,” but they don’t go further on to say if the wrong doer actually gave any information to save those people. It is only permissible when it is saving lives but it is not, because most of the wrong doers are not saying anything explains a former FBI agent. He was part of the FBI interrogation team, and had a prisoner of AL Qaeda, in an interrogation like room and used methods of interrogation, the prisoner opened up. He describes next when the CIA came in and used methods of torture that caused the “prisoner to shut down.” As it is explained in this scenario, torture may not be effective on getting any information at all.
Bagaric and Clarke emphasize that torture should be used to save an innocent person’s life. In the essay, they give an example of a surgeon and a hostage scenario. Surgeons torture innocent people every day, and it is “morally acceptable” for a police officer to shoot the wrong doer if they are keeping an innocent person hostage, but only because they are saving a life. The bigger counter argument to this is the fact that torture will not save everyone. This is true, but we can go back to the example of the surgeon. If a patent will die if he doesn’t get operated on, a surgeon has to take the risk of “torturing” this person to try to save him. The problem is, surgeries are not always successful, but as a society, we think this is morally right. The same thing goes with torture, it is not the first choice, but if it is the only option left, we have to take that chance and hope that we will save an innocent person life.
ReplyDeleteThe point that torture is justifiable if it involves saving peoples lives, is one of the many points that are brought up by Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke. They argue that torture should be used as a last resort measure. This would mean the practice would still be used, however, only when the United States has used up all of their other alternative tactics to gain life-saving information. Although not always successful, there are times when it works in crucial situations. According to a headline from CNS titled “CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles,” the CIA was able to get information out of an interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Shelik Mohammad. The information helped to botch another 9/11 bomb-like attempt in Los Angeles. In this scenario, it was in the country’s best interest to torture. It may not always be successful, however, it is a risk that should be taken if it means saving lives.
ReplyDeleteMichael Mora Brenes
ReplyDeleteEnglish 105
In the essay, “From Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible,” by Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke, the authors claim that “torture is permissible where the evidence suggests that an innocent life can be saved.” On one hand, their statement is right by the point of view of how many innocent lives can be saved by torturing only the wrongdoers. However, I cannot agree that torture for any reason is an acceptable and rational resolution to their crimes. It doesn’t make any sense that we detest individuals who brutalize people, yet when it comes to inflicting pain on criminals, we do not detest ourselves. Despite their crimes, offenders are also human beings, and by torturing them, we create a double standard. In many scenarios, offenders are people with problems or psychological disorders who from one day to another acquire eccentric desires to lash out against others. It can be anybody, from a postpartum mother to a professional person with family problems. Thus, torturing those people is not a coherent way to stop torture and help them with their problems. I believe that more torturing won’t stop torture and that it is necessary to opt for some other ways to treat this problem in order to stop this great violence wave we are living in nowadays.
In Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke's essay: TORTURE: WHEN THE UNTHINKABLE IS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE", one of the sub arguments is "A related objection that has been raised to life-saving torture is that it will dehumanize the torturer (as opposed to society in general). The evidence, however, is to the contrary.". However, the objection is correct, because if someone has become a torturer and is torturing somebody, that means that they have become desperate. No normal moral human being actually wants to torture anybody. Thus, the only way that these people would torture a wrongdoer is out of desperation, if it was the only way to get what they want, or need. And in desperation, a person becomes demoralized, desensitized, and yes, dehumanized. Whether it's the police and government, or just the common man in an odd and rare situation, that desperation will tear apart their soul (if there is such a thing in government), and numb all feelings of sympathy and woe.
ReplyDeleteBagaic and Clarke state, “To this end, there is no question that causing (even intense) physical pain to a suspect causes less pain than allowing many people to be blown up. The enduring pain that would be felt by the relative of the victims grossly out weighs the physical pain inflicted on the suspect.” This statement seems very logical to me. In an unavoidable scenario such as someone getting tortured rather than a bombing would seem more beneficial. It would save thousands of people’s lives and not just one. Also, thousands of family’s would be save from surviere emotional pain. So there can be many good things that could come out of this scenario. I’m not saying that torture is good, just that sometimes it’s inevitable.
ReplyDeleteIn “When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible,” Mirko and Julie say, “given the choice between inflicting a relatively small level of harm on a wrongdoer and saving an innocent person, it is verging on moral indecency to prefer the interests of the wrongdoer.” I refute this claim because in most cases, immeasurable pain is placed on the villain. For example, after 9/11 the United States stopped at nothing to find Osama Bin Laden. However, his followers would never reveal their boss location easily. The only way to get the location was to torture supporters who had this information. The men weren’t going to talk unless they were placed in an extremely painful situation. As a result, the United States retrieved the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden and this would not be possible if the torture wasn’t painful and not minimal as the authors suggest.
ReplyDeleteIn the article "Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible," Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke make the claim “torture is permissible where the evidence suggests that an innocent life can be saved.” I think this is true in some situations, but i don't think torture is the right thing to do. They argue that the pain felt by the victim and relatives to the victim outweighs the pain inflicted on the suspect. There are different ways to deal with suspect other than torture. By harming the suspect it brings us down to his level because we are doing the same thing he is in trouble for. Also when in a torture situation you don't know if they are telling the truth or not. When being tortured people are willing to say anything in order to get out of a situation, whether it is the truth or not. torture is morally wrong and should only be used as a last resort in some situations.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the article "Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible," Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke state that torture is acceptable when it is saving an acquitted life. They give an example using surgeries and operations, however mentioning surgeons hurt people every single day, but in the end they are only trying to benefit the patient. In my opinion, torture is not acceptable under any circumstances. For instance, if someone is being tortured, is it right for me to go and start and hurt the harasser? No, it will just make the situation a lot worse than it has to be. I understand the idea of saving the person being tortured, but there must be other ways around the circumstance.
ReplyDeleteThe main argument the writers are using to justify morality of torture is if it saves lives. They looked at a hostage situation where torturing the wrongdoer is acceptable and moral if it saves the life of the kidnapped person. But they haven't considered the fact that torture can't be a solution even if it might seem as the last resort. Torture is thought of as a last resort because the people that are bringing that idea are under a lot of stress. Human beings are extremely innovative in so many ways_It's possible to trick and manipulate the kidnapper so that he can give information. Many psychologist these days have come up with ways to get people to talk not just by words but body language, vocal tone and the such.
ReplyDeletethe main argument presented by Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke in the article "Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible," is that torture is adequate in situations where an innocent live can be saved. Torture is undeniably a immoral act, but there are cases where torture should be used to save a life. Time is an essential factor in some cases and by torturing a captured hostage they can get right to the point. Simply interrogating the hostage doesn't always work and resorting to torture should be acceptable.
ReplyDeleteIn Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke's article "Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible," torture is said to dehumanized the tortured and the torturer. Which I find true, torture places one person in a state where they have to break the rights of another human by treating them as nothing more than a piece of meat needed to feed a family. Sure it may save an innocent person by torturing the person, but is it worth the effects it has on not only the tortured but also the people involved in torturing them. The torturer(s) have to put aside all their moral beliefs to attempt to save a life through physical and mental harm to a person that may not even release the information that is needed. The tortured treated no better than the dirt on the ground tracked beneath the torturer's boots, found dirty and disgusting when the torturer knows nothing about them except what they are told. Having torturers being viewed as cold, heartless beings with no emotion, only seen as the beast that abused another human of flesh and blood for their own gain. Whether a life was saved or not torture is immoral and the harm and dehumanization that comes from it is far worse than any positive gain won.
ReplyDelete