The argument uses surveys, hypothetical situations, and even historical situations to prove his point. The author points out, people were outraged that Hitler was not assassinated and assassination is simply a relative of torture. To me, this displays that some of his hypothetical circumstances, which appear at first to be too narrowly focused, have actually had application in history without being stretched to far to retain meaning. From this perspective then, the argument is clearly not useless. Hitler was the cause of the death of millions. A great majority of Jewish men would have happily shot four or five guards to get a shot at Hitler. The torture or death of innocents is unfortunate, and the author agrees, but one must understand that you are picking the lesser of two evils. The pain of a few innocents (possibly, and not included in the argument), or the death of a far greater number of innocents, just hours away from explosion. Sure, sometimes the criminal will be tough enough to handle it, and sometimes you have damaged 202 people rather than 200, but those two people are not dead. They will recover. The dead and their families, however, don't get that chance. You can't just let criminals plant a bomb, taunt America, and walk away with money, hundreds dead. Though this was not argued, the fact that we are willing to torture, will encourage fewer people to even attempt this, knowing that they will just crack later. Even worse, knowing that we will never torture will have just the opposite effect.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Torture
I agree with a great deal of the ideas mentioned in the article suggesting torture should be allowed under certain circumstances. While there are some faults in the piece, the faults, from what I can see, are not faults of the argument itself, but the somewhat useless nature of the argument. The argument itself is quick, solid, and specific. It describes situations in which only the most irrational of people would not imply that torture would be the correct option. The lack of application is the argument's main issue. I understand this, but it is important to understand that this is not actually the fault of the argument. When undergoing radical hyperbole this argument should be considered "useless" not "bad."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
You say that the article uses surveys and hypothetical situations to prove its point. The survey of mothers asked four people. That is not enough to provide a valid argument for the issue.
Political systems are corrupt by nature. How long to you think it would take for the restrictions to be extended to benefit those in power? Torture would not be reserved for the guilty for any extended period of time, if at all.
Most terrorists believe very strongly in the issue they're fighting for. You may get an answer out of them as a result of your torture, but there's no way to tell if it's the right answer until it's too late. He'll send you somewhere while another place is being destroyed. Not only have you been involved in unconstitutional, sadistic acts, but also you've wasted valuble time that you could have spent using an alternative way of searching.
First I would like to point out that while the survey was of four people, most mothers have a deep concern for their children that you (hopefully) have not experienced. The fact that he only surveyed four was not the point. If, however, your stubborn mind desires, you may skip over the word "survey" next time you read my blog.
Concerning your second point, if time is your concern, please understand that it does not take the entire US Military and government to torture one person. I personally recommend simultaneously interrogating the terrorist and searching for outside information. What you also seem to continuously ignore is that this is one man about to kill thousands of people FAR more innocent than this guy. You are so concerned with the rights of this ONE man. What about the 1000 people and their families. Do they have the right not to die? What if the terrorist did not have a quick death in mind for them, but a slow and painful gas attack. Does that not elicit the same effects as torture? Nobody is going to care for the rights of the murderer at that point. Why even take a chance at letting 1000 people suffer the irreparable fate of death, so that the terrorist can walk home with baby skulls in his pocket and tell his friends of his achievements? it doesn't make sense. Let me just ask you Abby... Is a nation designed to protect its people? or those that try to kill them?
First of all, that was an amazing response. I'm impressed.
However, just because torture would be a plausible course of action, doesn't mean that it is the only one. There have been cases where a person will come forward and say things like, "I will blow up this place," or "I murdered Jon Bennet Ramsey," because it attracts media attention. These people are mentally ill. If a person actually puts himself in a situation where he turns himself in or allows himself to be caught, he is probably either bluffing or a decoy.
You are basing your argument off of the assumption that it will work. There's too much of a chance that the torture won't lead to results or that the person isn't actually guilty.
Also, torturing people has been proven to have negative effects on the people doing the torturing. Exposure to repulsive events causes serious mental issues with soldiers, and causing so much pain to a fellow living thing, regardless of who he/she is, hurts.
JD, I envy you. Not only do you present a valid argument, but you present it in a completely badass manner that would probably cause me to change my opinion if you were to ever create an argument over one of my blogs on a different topic. I also agree with the author, just as you do.
Post a Comment