Some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable.
Debate Rounds (4)
2.By saying something is minimally, morally acceptable, it is meant that there are some exceptions in which torture is permissible, where other cases it is impermissible.
3.Torture is justified when it saves the lives of others, a life is threatened or in danger, when self defense is necessary, and when the action is causing a threat to someone else.
4.Morality is the principles that distinct good actions, characteristics, or beliefs from bad.
5.Depending on morality views, what one thinks is permissible, another might 3think is impermissible.
6.There are different kinds of torture.
7.From a minimal sense, the torture only affects them for a short period of time where as in a maximal sense, it affects them for a long period of time.
8.It is said that minimal torture is permissible and maximal torture is not.
9.There are acts of torture that are one-off acts, which only occur once in a time of emergency, and are justifiable.
10.A defense case is one of aggression, where as an interrogation case is not.
11. Both are acceptable cases of torture.
12.A holding case stops an individual from committing an action, but in a withholding case they are not stopped, only caused to preform that action.
13.In a holding case it is permissible to use torture to prevent the action from occurring, but in a withholding case torture is impermissible.
Therefore, some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable.
Premis one is non-controversial because it is the definition of torture and both sides of the argument should agree on it.
Premis five is non-controversial because it is a fact that people have different views and values.
Premis six is non-controversial because it is a fact that there are different kinds of torture. Some are permissible and some are not.
Premis seven is non-controversial because it is explaining definitions.
Premis ten is non-controversial because it is a definition.
Premis twelve is non-controversial because it is a definition.
Premis two is controversial because some may think all forms of torture are impermissible. My premis is true, however, because in some cases torture is justified.
Premis three is controversial because the con side might not agree with my reasoning. This premis is true because in some certain cases, torture is justifiable based on the situation they are put in.
Premis four is controversial because one might disagree with what I defined morality as. It is true because those aspects are most relevant to morality.
Premis eight is controversial because one might have a different view. This is true because in some cases, torture is the only option.
Premis nine is controversial, however it is true because in cases of emergency torture might be the only option in order to prevent an action or save a life.
Premis eleven is controversial because it takes a side. It is true because in the situation stated, torture is permissible when information is needed from someone else, or in a self-defense case.
Premis thirteen is controversial because one might disagree with the side I took. It is, however, true because in order to prevent the action from occurring torture is necessary.
2. Rape causes pleasure for the attacker, breaks the will of the individual being assaulted and causes pain and suffering. Rape is not minimally morally justifiable.
3. Torture is not justified because you are then infringing on the rights of that individual by forcing him/her to tell you what you want against their own wishes.
4. Indeed, morality is the principles that distinct good actions, characteristics, or beliefs from bad.
5. What an individual believes morality to be is arbitrary to what morality actually is.
6. Indeed there are different forms of torture, all forms are harmful to the physical or mental state of the victim.
7.Whether it is minimal or maximal torture is still torture. An individuals rights is still being compromised. They are still forced against their will whether it be for a short amount of time or a pro long period. Neither minimal nor maximal torture is morally permissible.
8.It is unlawful for to use torture to get information.
9. Just because one-off acts only happen in times of emergency does not necessarily make them justifiable.
10. The goal of an interrogation is for an officer to force or persuade the suspect to confess to a crime or the knowing of one. A large amount of people are put away every year for crimes they did not commit, if we are sticking to the definition of torture then interrogation is a form of it.
11. It is never justified because an innocent individual could be held and tortured but not know anything at all. It is harder to prove innocence rather than guilt.
12. No, cases of torture are acceptable.
13. The holding case is to stop an individual, this is torture because it is then against the will of the individual.
Therefore, no cases of torture that are minimally, morally acceptable.
Non-Controversial: Premise one and is agreed upon between pro and con it is the definition of torture. Premise nine, it if agreed that there are different forms of torture.
Controversial: Premise two is controversial I do not agree with some forms of torture being minimally morally permissible. It is a definition but it is not agreed upon. Premise three is controversial because although it may benefit someone else it is still torture. Premise four is controversial because anyone can have a moral belief and not everyone agrees. I can believe having indoor plumbing is immoral that does not make it so. Premises six, seven and eight from the pro side is controversial because no matter what is done torture always hurts some one physically or mentally. Rights of the individual are denied. Premises ten to thirteen are controversial because the pro side is naming things that are and are not minimally morally permissible and I disagree.
Pro premise 4: Who defines what morality is?
Every person has different moral values and therefore, each person defines his or her own morality. What one might see as an impermissible act of torture, another might see as a permissible act. Indeed, all acts of torture are not justifiable but there are, however, many acts of torture that are reasonable. Your moral and ethical views impact which acts of torture you believe to be permissible.
I agree all acts of torture inflict pain and are harmful, but that is irrelevant because we are arguing whether or not those actions are justified, and some of those are morally justified.
Indeed, interrogation is a form of torture, however it is a form of justifiable torture. Just because there are rare cases where the individual being interrogated was not guilty, does not prove all cases in this matter are similar. In interrogation cases, the individual in interrogation is purposely not cooperating because they have already set in motion a plan for a tragedy to occur. Because they intended to inflict pain on others, torture is used to interrogate them in attempt of preventing his or her action to follow through and save lives of all who would be affected. It is justifiable to use torture to gain information because the information will most likely be used to protect innocent people.
A holding case prevents an individual from pursuing an action. In preventing it, many lives can be saved. For example, a police officer is entitled to use torture on a terrorist who is trying to shoot an innocent individual. By inflicting pain on the terrorist, the police officer is saving the innocent individual"s life and therefore, it is justifiable.
How a person defines morality in his or her own minds does not concern the rest of the world. A murder may see nothing wrong with what he/she is doing he/she may be under the delusion that he is actually helping. I am sure that we both can agree that murder is not justified. If we think logically we can say it is wrong to burn people with lit cigarettes, starve and beat people to death there is nothing moral about that. If we went of each individual"s moral views we would be in a world of ciaos. The moral and ethical views impact how they think but since it does not impact the rest of the world it is irrelevant.
Ok if it is agreed that all acts of torture inflict pain or are harmful what is then justified about it?
Interrogation is morally unjustified; it manipulates people through degradation and torture. We both agree that innocent individuals are forced into prisons every year at an alarming rate. This is due to people who see nothing wrong with torture and just want people to say what they want to hear. Inflicting an excruciating degree of force unnecessarily on an innocent person must sound perfectly ok to you. Why do you think the criminal justice system has rules? Why is it that we have rights? There are reasons why and one of those is not to be violated.
Just because it is your belief that they are intending to harm others does not give you a right to harm them first. Two wrongs together are still wrong. Your argument is that torture is sometimes justified because you could be saving lives, and since we already agreed the individual could be innocent you would be harming and even killing other innocent man in hopes of saving other innocent people. You do not have any proof of these so called "terrorist" doing anything. So, by inflicting pain on a "person" you are violating their rights and possibly inflicting unnecessary torture.
Indeed, one"s definition of morality does not concern the rest of the world however, it affects how they think, they"re actions, and what they think is justifiable. Murder is a definite impermissible act of torture, but I think everyone can agree that self-defense is a justifiable act of torture. Indeed, there are acts of torture that are morally justified, but there are some acts of torture that are minimally, morally justified.
As said before, acts of torture are justified when it saves the lives of others, a life is threatened or in danger, when self defense is necessary to protect your own life, or when the action of someone is causing a threat to someone else. Torturing someone causes the moral standards to be compromised in order to prevent others from being harmed. If the focus is saving the life of an innocent person, there are no limits to torturing the person putting their life in danger.
In order to be interrogated, you must have done, attempted, or been involved in a crime, or something morally unjustifiable. Because of the actions that individual chose, they have to pay the consequences. There are many cases of justifiable torture that also include interrogation. Interrogation is known to be the most effective strategy because it causes fear upon the individual and therefore they confess to what they did. If your behavior was ethically right, it would have also been morally justifiable and therefore torturing you would be morally impermissible. If one does not want their rights to be violated, they should not have violated another person"s in the first place.
Unreasonable torturing of an individual is impermissible. However, it is clear who is or isn"t a terrorist and who is trying to hurt others. In the cases where it is obvious that an individual or a terrorist is attempting to bring suffering upon another individual or many individuals whom are defenseless and unwilling, torture is justified.
Each individual's moral concerns only how he or she act but does not affect the definition of what it is. Since we agree that one"s definition of morality does not concern the rest of the world and does not justify torture I suppose we should move on from that. If someone murders another individual they will be on trial for murder not just let off because they claim self-defense. Self-defense is not minimally morally justifiable.
Torturing someone causes the moral standards of the torturer to be compromised and fro what reasons we ask. Because it could possibly save someone"s life is the reason to water board, burn, starve or beat someone?
What you are saying is incorrect; people are interrogated simply due to suspicion. Only thing one must do to be interrogated is to be under suspicion of have done something, attempted, or been involved in a crime, or something morally unjustifiable. How can you say interrogation is a torture and in the last round say it is not a form of torture. Interrogation is an unjustifiable form of torture that can be used on innocent unknowing people.
Causing fear and forcing an individual to say what you want to hear is torture if we go with the definitions you set in the first round. If it is clear who the terrorists are why is the public so misinformed? Everyone in their minds has a stereotype of who and what people are. Just because I look sane does not mean anything I could be a psychopath killing by day and sleeping by night. Do you believe someone else"s life is of lesser value than your life? If you did not then torture would not be morally justifiable in your eyes.
2.One"s moral rights can affect the actions and decisions that individual makes.
3.We are arguing that some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable, therefore moral values are relevant in this debate.
4.Torture is justified when it saves the lives of others, a life is in danger or self-defense is necessary to save one"s own life.
5.If someone is under suspicion of committing, attempting, or being involved in a crime, they deserve the torture they get.
6.Interrogation is one of the most effective forms of torture.
7.Just because the public is misinformed of who terrorists are does not mean investigators and police have not been watching their every move, and therefore sure of whom they are going after.
8.Unreasonable torture is impermissible, however, there are other acts of torture that are justifiable.
Therefore, some cases of torture are minimally, morally acceptable.
2. The morality of society is not affected by what a few tainted minds believe to be moral but by what actually is right and wrong; that of which has been taught to you from young.
3. There is an enormous amount of evidence that proves that torture is ineffective and that torturers cannot be trusted to identify exceptions.
4. The results of torturing are answers, those answers are highly unreliable.
5. Simply being under the suspicion of committing a crime does not justify using torture against that individual.
6. Just because the pro side believes interrogation is one of the most effective forms of torture does not make torture justified, it simply states a belief.
7. Investigators and police cannot possibly have been watching a suspects every move because if this were true there would be no questions to ask and therefore no torture would take place.
8. Using torture and depriving individuals of natural born rights is illegal and can never be justified.
Therefore, no form of torture is justifiable.
It is agreed that self-defense is torture. People such as murderers and psychopaths have a different view of morality then the rest of society and that means that society knows that the acts committed are wrong. If this is true why is it that society cannot see that torture is also wrong? Torture is basically another word for abuse to people who could have possibly did something to jeopardize the life of another person.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Renagade 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: an interesting topic I had not given much thought to. Both participants made unique points. Being that this is a argument based on philosophical opinions and not fact, I make my choice on my own moral compass. Torture has been used in society since the beginning of mankind. It is unavoidable. It has, and continues to be acceptable. The most consistent example of modern time is incarceration of those found in violation of a societies rules (criminals). It is torture to confine a human to a cell, yet we do for legitimate reasons and therefore is acceptable. Well done pro and Con, for strong points made on each side.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.