The Instigator
Donya813
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jvelez9
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Minimal Moral Justification of Torture

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 305 times Debate No: 65410
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Donya813

Pro

There are outstanding discrepancies of moral justice/injustice that appear to be betwixt and between of resolution that are subsequent to the act of torture. The foundation of torture has spiraled ethical controversies, concerning the righteous boundaries of such procedures and whether they should be acceptably retained. In agreement with those who are in favor of tortuous acts up to the degree that it does not conflict with total morale, we can concur that torture is performed centrally as a methodical resource to achieve some sort of superiority from the victim. However, some perceive this practice as completely dissolute. But how can classify the disdain towards torture if we don't recognize the possible positivity that stems from it in the same light we objectify it like utilitarians do? Let's first examine the underlying meaning of torture: torture is the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless, other person for the purpose of breaking their will. Torture can also be defined as an interference of one's psychological will as an act to obtain valuable information or confession. As noted, however, being tortured does not guarantee that one's will, will be tainted after executing the procedure. So is it fair to assume that this practice is labeled unethical even when done in the respects of deeming justice? Can we actually determine that "torture" undoubtedly compromises one's conviction and character even though certain instances of torture have proved that outcomes of such coercion is likely to be inconsistent?-The answer is simply that we can not. After understanding what torture is, we can't classify that it is totally immoral until we have addressed the connotation of morality. We must identify specifically what is meant by "moral" in order not to understand its significance in this debate: morality is concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. With these definitions in mind, torturing reasonable suspects as an effort to save humanity should be a prime factor of why this action can be morally justified. It is under my perspective that when such practices are conducted properly in the face of justice, minimal torture is acceptable as it is focused on the ethical principle (at least in this case). It is justified minimally because of the reasoning for doing so as it is stated previously. However, minimally means that we acknowledge that there is a limited extent in which we allow tortuous persecutions to be demonstrated. Therefore, we can act upon torture so long as it does not conflict nor go beyond moral measures. The morality that we can collect from here, is that we should torture those who are a threat to society in hopes of stopping it and as well to benefit mankind. Let's take a specific example from the passage to elaborate further: in terms of emergency, torture that is performed by state actors can be a relatively act of necessary conduct. These emergencies are the instances that make torture permissible in the aspect of saving morality. Torture is a protocol that is used for particular instances to handle and eliminate a potential act(s) of terrorism and illegal misdoings that may endanger the safety and well-being of humans in society. In consideration of these aspects of torture that are seemingly demeaning to some, I can see how ethical principals may differ, as this presumably may not be the most befitting approach when first taken into account. In contrast, nonetheless, how can we completely conclude that torture (at minimal degree) is not moral when it is mainly, if not, the only effective resource we can execute in order to save lives? Ultimately, it is apparent that torture should not always be perceived with such adversary, as it has the ability to produce positive outcomes. Minimal torture is justifiable in many respects when it concerns sustaining morality and therefore, making it a plausible.
Jvelez9

Con

Many of us may not know what is moral justice or injustice, but as humans and our inner instinct we know what can be considered right and wrong. Reasons being is that when we commit an act through emotions or feelings those acts reflect on whether they may feel good or they may feel as if it may be the wrong thing to do. As my opponent has not described the definition of "moral justice", it would be the judging of actions or thoughts done subjectively, and by the rightness and wrongness of each done by not fully following the law although some of these actions may also be illegal. Although some of these actions, including torture are illegal it does not give one the right to torture another living human or animal to gain satisfaction. Even though they may or may not be completely be a threat to society. Torture can never be justified as an act to gain information. How can one not say that some torture may not effect a total morale of a human? How is some torture ok but not all? Please, I need to understand if there is any torturous acts that may boost the spirit and make one feel as if "good" while being tortured. That is the only way I can see as a torturous act not conflicting with the total moral. Would water boarding or pulling of toe nails and teeth ever be considered as an acceptable conduct to self? I do not believe so. I did not wish to touch on this subject but in war, each side has an enemy. Which means if it may be acceptable for you to torture for answers, then it may be acceptable for the other side to commit the same acts as well. Like all living things, it may be ok to commit harm but when the same harm may be don"t to you then it may considered terrible or the wrong act of reaction or interrogation. Torturing an individual until there is complete satisfaction does not exactly mean that justice will be completely served and there will be a stop of preventing any violent acts that may be planned. There can never be a stop to violence, there will always be hate and also someone who is would want to harm other persons. Torture is just an act of adding on to that type of harm and cruelty. Should we torture all enemies until we gain self-satisfaction? What if the person who is being tortured really does not have the answer you are completely looking for? As people living in a world where we cannot always have thing the way we want them, we create enemies and people who do not agree with our everyday lifestyle. Should we torture these type of persons as well? There is no absolute definition or action that may be under the category of minimal torture or torture that may be performed to the maximal capacity. My question is what exactly may be considered as minimal torture to be acceptable? Can it be striking someone with a fist as opposed to burning them? Or choking instead of drowning or water boarding? I see all these actions considered as unethical. Anything that may be considered torture or claimed to be in the same subject as torture is considered to be unacceptable. Are there any other factors that also may be considered instead of torture? Torturing one does not always mean you will save another life. We arrest criminal every day, some criminals are a threat to society and some are not. Should all criminals arrested as a threat to society be tortured? Some people including myself would say no. Being incarcerated may be enough to stop the individual from committing anymore threats or violent acts to society. If torture may always have a guarantee of stopping or committing violent acts, then I may have some type of hesitation in this argument, because by now all violent acts would have be done and prevented which would make for a peaceful world. There absolutely be nothing to argue about. In the case where one may carry a title of law enforcement or nation defense for the country, that also does not allow the right to torture. We are all still considered as humans, and as humans we feel mostly everything taken into account. Just because one may hold a certain title does not give the right to commit harm or violent acts on other kinds of individuals. This is why I do not agree with the method of torture and I am against this kind of procedure.
Debate Round No. 1
Donya813

Pro

Donya813 forfeited this round.
Jvelez9

Con

Jvelez9 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Donya813

Pro

Donya813 forfeited this round.
Jvelez9

Con

Jvelez9 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Donya813

Pro

Donya813 forfeited this round.
Jvelez9

Con

Jvelez9 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.