Monday, September 8, 2008
Torture
I agree wholeheartedly with Levin on this issue. Torture is morally reprehensible, I agree, but I am also able to distance myself from the visceral response the idea of torture brings. I can logically approach the issue with an open mind, and if one can remove emotion from the issue it is quite clear that torture is a necessity in certain situations. One must balance the numbers and calculate that the suffering of one is a small sacrifice for the survival and well-being of the many. When we adopted societal constraints as humans, we adopted the necessity of sometimes sacrificing an individual for the benefit of society. When terrorists deny the people they attack the basic right to life, how can we allow that to occur in order to protect their rights? It is madness to allow torture on a grand scale by avoiding it on a small one. If we can defend the lives of our people, we must make every effort to do so. While torture may not be one hundred percent effective, we must allow that it does give a greatly increased chance of success. In order to maximize the probability of a positive outcome, we must take every chance we can in stopping terrorism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
What evidence can you provide to say that torture increases your chances of saving people from suffering? People lie under torture. A terrorist wholey believes that he is doing what is right, and because of this, he will lie under torture. Under no circumstances will you ever be able to narrow it down to one person you suspect of being responsible for the terrorist attacks, and if he comes out and says, "I am the terrorist. Here I am," there's a pretty good chance he's a decoy as part of a larger opperation. If you're going to torture all suspected terrorists, you're going to have to force innocents to suffer. No authority, no matter how stable, can handle that sort of power responsibly, although resorting to torture is an irresponsible solution in itself. There are always alternatives, and allowing our government to terrorize its own people (or anyone, for that matter) is not a viable option.
WHile your earnestly state in your first sentence that you wholeheartedly agree with Levin on the issue, i do not believe you fully articulate your view in this piece. I feel like instead of explaining you view, you simply write until your two hundred words are up, and stop. I understand your belief of the situations presented by Levin, but under other circumstances which are more likely and generally more down to earth, where do you stand? From this blog i would have to assume that no matter what you are for the torture of any level of individual for any purpose. Where do you personally draw the line? I feel like the examples brought up on the article and subsequent comments are overlooking actual situations that would occur. It is unlikely there is a one man terrorist organization, and if so he is such a serial killer that I myself would believe him worthy of any extent of torture for the betterment of mankind. Where do you stand on more down to earth situations?
I agree with your basic premise, that torture is often a necessary evil. When certain individuals perpetrate actions that prove harmful to our society, they forfeit much of their rights inherent in being a member of our society. It's easy to say, society has matured such that we now can do away with torture. But has it? There are certain individuals who wish to do our society harm and no amount of reasonable coercion will convince them to cease and desist.
I feel that many detractors of your line of argument are typecasting 'terrorists'. I doubt any of us can know how a terrorist things. Do we assume because we saw a dateline special on Al-Quada training camps that we can know how the majority of social deviants think? None of us ourselves are terrorists (I supremely hope) and so how can we presume to know what would or would not be effective in procuring information from them? Even in groups in which we belong to, such broad statements are folly. I can say, I am a hoosier, and hoosiers thing a certain way. Or, I am a caucasian, and because I hold these beliefs, so do most other caucasians. Does this line of reasoning seem not erroneous? And yet it is one of the biggest refutations to you and the author of the original paper's points. We cannot presume to know how such social deviants think, they are a breed apart.
Post a Comment