A Right Against Torture? Essay

Explain how you would audition to free an autocratic remedy against spin, and how you would try to meet the main objections to much(prenominal) a proposed mightily.This es chthonian(a)stand sets out to deal with the real important issues raised by the enforce of whirl in compensate a offices come out. more than than precisely, the point of this constitution is to stick out a adept against aberration, of which both deal should benefit, and non just either form of righteousness, precisely atomic number 53 of an secure nature.In order to deal with these issues the essay for involve firstly justify wherefore and absolute right against pang is mandatory from a philosophic point of view as well as a methodological unitary. Secondly, this essay aims to im psycheate its exonerations and critiques against the main objections to this proposed absolute right. In achieving both goals the paper will present empirical and normative evidence of wherefore stack from all over the valet de chambre should benefit from this absolute right, and non just in writing, scarcely also in practice.Before venturing forth with the arguments essential to def fetch up the absolute right against badgering I will pardon the term of absolute right as it is requisite so that alwaysyone netherstands the splendor of much(prenominal) a right and eve more, so that incessantlyyone hatful amaze it off the gravity of infringing upon such a right.An absolute right is a right that can non be infringed upon under absolutely both luck. The right against torture qualifies as such an absolute right under agreements such as the ECHR (European congregation on Human Rights), the UKHRA (UK Harm Reduction Alliance) and the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights). there atomic number 18 today 192 signatory states of the UDHR these states are legally bound to take none all of the articles of this document. The main problem is that regular(a) th ough all of these states have signed the declaration, there have been reports between 1997 and 2001 of torture macrocosm secure in 140 countries. It is therefore sad when we come to the conclusion that change surface out though this right is one from which these mountain should have been protected from, that has non drop deaded and it has not been enforced, solely s for ever soely infringed upon in some of the states it should be guaranteed. An absolute right against torture as remote as I am concerned should not even be defended in whatsoever kind of way, but instead it should be implied, it should be a given and it should not be a topic of conversation in any ecological niche of the world.The reasons why I will always try and be a stalwart defender of such a right are umpteen. The devil main arguments I would bid to propose in order to defend this right are the fact that torture constitutes an incredibly vicious and corrupting practice, and that furthermore, tort ure practised in todays society will halt, at least on some level, the capability of human beings to progress. The world has evolved from all points of view, today we live in a world that has importantly improved technologically, a world that has chit-chatn major improvements in ways of sound offing, a world that is now more human rights based than ever, and til now the equivalent world cannot expect to be able to let go of one of the nigh backwards practices it has ever invented, torture. The status-quo of todays world is not force-out as it was in the Middle Ages, on the contrary, we live in a world that has more and more tried to enhance its defence of human rights and to reduce the as much as possible the supernumerary use of force, terror and violence against humanity and not precisely.Perhaps if we had all lived in the Middle Ages, the practice of torture would not seem as appalling as it does to so many flock today. I powerfully believe that torture is wrong no e mergence what approach I take. Torture is immoral and fundamentally wrong and it has both short-term and long-term disastrous consequences on all human beings not just those deal it is used against. Although torture has been bindd an illegal it has been used many times. This elbow room it pass bys in an un gived manner, passel do not really kip down when and where it happens most of the times, and if they find out it is because some mistakes have been made. With the technological advancements today it is easier to capture and present to the public such acts of violence than it was before. One of the discourses on torture has been on what kind of approach should be taken. The solutions when dealing with torture are as follows flip torture legal and resort to it when needed never resort to torture no matter what the circumstances declare torture illegal and always declare that torture will not be used but resort to practicing it when needed but only under the radar.The only r easonable approach as far as I am concerned is to never under any circumstances resort to torture. Using a process of elimination this is serene the only reasonable opinion in regards to torture as the another(prenominal)(prenominal) two options are immoral. First of all, qualification torture legal should again require no arguments as to why this is immoral. The arguments are plenty and yet its defences are few if any, but first let us incubate the arguments against making torture a legal act in any society. This is a cocktail dress that need be taken in comity in democratic states and not autocratic ones since in those shells there is no system of checks and balances in institutionalise and the state does not answer to its citizens (who are even viewed and treated as mere subjects in some cases). In a democratic society, making torture legal seems a quite impossible task as far as I am concerned.I do not have an actual statistic regarding peoples views on torture and yet I feel confident abounding to say that the majority of people would vote against it. Even if that were not the case, people would motionless need to know what they are voting for. Let us consider a state of affairs where a country would like to throw off torture legal. The discontinuey that would like to propose such a legalisation of torture would present its case and try to hide as many realities concerning torture as possible and instil a sense of uniform fear into the people, explaining that many deaths would be avoided if they would be allowed to resort to torture procedures and farthermost but not least explain the tick flunk scenario (to which I will come back later) and try to make it seem like a general rule rather than the exception it really is. The emulation would in this case only need to present torture as the immoral, degrade and humiliating practice it is. The best way for this would be to present acts of torture on television so that all the people that were thinking of voting in favour see what torture really is.I find it hard to believe that after(prenominal) such a spectacle anyone would even consider voting in order to pass the legalization of torture. For the sake of the argument let us as yet consider that the people, even after watching the gruesome shows of torture would restrained vote on behalf of making torture legal. In that office staff, all we need to do is resort to Alan Dershowitzs argument and ask ourselves whether we really want to create such a society in which person has a right to torture. We would need to train people in special torture techniques, have companies produce torture equipment, torture rooms would no yearner need to be hidden, perchance even build them in the centre of the city with glass walls so that e trulyone can witness what is happening in there and so even more instil fear in potential terrorists. Children would no longer say they want to be policemen, firemen, astronauts or race car drivers, but torture experts. Institutionalizing torture would come about to an increasingly violent society, a society where normality would shift towards violence.Today many people believe and cohere to the idea that violence is not the answer not only people, but entire societies try and uphold this idea of non-violent responses, yet by legalizing the practice of torture we would help build a society where so violence would be the answer. Even if no other matters, laws or practices would suffer changes instantaneously with the exception of torture being legal that can arguably lead to a more violent society by constantly being in the minds of people as a regular occurrence. One of the major problems today that need be addressed when taking into consideration the supposition of people agreeing to make torture legal is the fact that people are most of the times concerned mainly about their own welfare and are hypocritical. People often judge facts or disregard current reali ties because of a what they dont know wont smart them wittiness. This is why they must be presented with the real humiliating act of torture they must witness it in order to truly appreciate its immoral and degrading nature so that in the end they whitethorn be able to cast a vote that truly reflects their thoughts and feelings regarding this matter.This is one of the reasons why we need to have an absolute right against torture, since without it we would live in a slowly morally degrading society that allows for such horrendous acts to happen, a society that sacrifices its morals to gain what it depraveingly believes to be protection against terrorist threats. The gage choice when confronted with torture would be for the government to allow for it to happen under the radar while publicly organizing fake propaganda against it for the people. This again is very immoral. In order for a government to allow for torture to happen would plastered that it is renouncing its liberal and democratic values since it would be doing something it does not have flattery from its citizens to do. Torture is in all aspects immoral and should always be considered to be immoral. Torture is immoral because it dehumanizes everyone affect in it. It dehumanizes and degrades the victim, the same victim who is rugged and treated in a way not even animals should ever be treated. It is immoral because it is an assault on human dignity.Furthermore, torture does not only dehumanize the victim, but the torturer as well. This entire process, even if through with(p) under the radar or with public support, degrades the society as a whole with its practices and implications. The major pro torture defences are self-defence and the click bomb scenario. A democratic society cannot allow for torture to happen in any of these scenarios, as appealing as they might seem at a first glance. In order to understand why an outright ban should be imposed against torture and an absolute right agains t it be adopted we need to take a deeper look at what these scenarios bring to the negotiation table. In the self-defence scenario, where psyche knows the whereabouts of a person that will die if not helped soon, some people will say that by torturing the person who is withholding the study might loll them the arrangement of the person in need of prudence. This is again immoral since weve seen the very big problems that come with institutionalizing torture but lets think beyond that. Why would it ever be right to torture one person in order to save another? Sure, it is self-defence when someone assaults you and you fight back and eventually end up injuring or putting to death the person that tried to assault you, and it would diversify as self-defence.It would even qualify as self-defence if someone were to hold your wife at full point and you would eventually manage to save her and again injure or get the better of the attacker because in that mooring laws in most countri es extend the self-defence to the person that was the victim in the first place. But there is however a difference between someone holding a gas pedal to your loved ones head, and that same person withholding familiarityship as to where the loved one is being held and they might die if not helped in time. The difference between the above mentioned cases lies with the certainty factor and how call for the two possible crimes are. Its one thing to have a bomber held at someones head, where you could maybe even see the attacker pull the trigger, while a person held somewhere take of air maybe is not a direct trigger being pulled not to mention the fact that when seeing the attacker holding the gun aimed at someone makes you almost certain of their intention, while one can never be sure that the attacker even has training as to the whereabouts of the victim. Even if torture would not be completely immoral and limit with so many plagues against society, the uncertainty and the le vel of direct or collateral connection to the crime should be enough to outright ban torture.The check bomb scenario is arguably the strongest defence of pro torture theorists. For this reason I will address it now and try to explain why this case should not allow torture to happen under any circumstances and even with this scenario in mind an absolute right against torture is needed. The main argument of this scenario is that indeed a terrorist believed to have schooling about the location of a time bomb that will go off in a crowded place should be anguished in order to find out where the bomb is. I find this scenario quite ridiculous in its convincing capabilities but that is not the case for many people confronted with the idea so the problem requires addressing. This scenario is ultimately used as a trap for liberals that out of formula refuse torture on any kind of basis, be it the case of legalization or of it happening under the radar. When confronted with this situatio n some liberals cannot hold back out of principle and beliefs anymore and indeed give in to a hypothetical situation where the torture of one terrorist would save the lives of thousands or even maybe more.This scenario is so overstretched and made to sound so simplistic that it could no longer be deemed as realistic. Sure, maybe most of the people confronted with this largely unrealistic situation mentioned above would give in after all, it is a no brainer right? Torture one, save thousands, even more. Things are not like that though and other factors need to be taken into consideration when debating on whether or not torture should be allowed at least in these perfect situations. In this situation the overlooked factors are of decisive importance. Pro torture theorists make two very big mistakes (on purpose of course to mislead people) they transform this scenario into a general rule, a regular occurrence with which most of the people will be confronted at some point in their live lihood, instead of the exception it really is. There has only been one case recorded where the Philippine authorities have excruciate a terrorist for cardinal days in order to get culture out of him that may have stopped an attempt to assassinate the pope and crash xi planes into the Pacific Ocean.The planes had approximately four thousand passengers. The first problem is that this uttermost(prenominal) act of terrorism is an exceptional occurrence and by no center a regular one, and leads us to the second huge flaw of this check bomb scenario, the fact that it is riddled with uncertainty. The Philippine authorities have tortured the man for such a long a time that they were themselves dazed that he was still alive when he gave them the information so they tortured him without even being sure that he knows anything, without being sure that he would survive to give them any information at all and without actually being sure that the information he would maybe provide would i ndeed prove to be expedient. How can it therefore ever be right even in this scenario to torture someone? It is close to impossible to ever be sure that a person actually has any useful information it is also never a certain thing that even if he provides some information that information is true. No one should ever be humiliated and treated in such a way as a tortured person is since nothing can ever be one hundred per cent certain when it comes to torture because a person in the pains of torture would say anything to put an end to the pain.What if the tortured person actually does not know anything about a plot? What then? The torturer will never stop since he has to get the information out therefore he tortures with the certainty that the tortured has the information while he might actually know nothing. Should in this situation the torturer be allowed to torture the wife, children and other relatives in order to get the information out? Where would this entire process stop? Aft er all he might know something even if after he has been tortured and watched his wife be tortured and killed in front of him he still says no, the torturer is still sure that he is withholding information so he continues with his children. If he still does not say anything the torturer might think that he is a very well trained terrorist and very unwavering to his cause, so why stop? The torturer can be just as determined and loyal to his cause in return and continue to torture as many relatives of the victim as he possibly can to get the information out of him.This is a built-in problem of the whole ticking bomb scenario, a problem because the terrorist might know something that if he might disclose to the torturer, might prove as valuable information. non only does the ticking bomb scenario almost never arise, but even in the intense eventuality that it does, getting the information, and not just any information but the right one seems as probable as finding a needle in a hays tack while being blindfolded and wearing boxing gloves and yet some people are still not convinced and would, even in these given situations, employ the degrading and inhumane act of torture. If so, why not make even make it a fun thing to try and alleviate the gravity of such a situation and allow people to bet on whether or not the victim will give out the right information and foil the plot a person would easily be offered really good odds and be able to win fortunes with a mere penny.Furthermore, again in the area of how everything related to torture is uncertain and holds no guarantee we must acknowledge that even if after all those presented above, we grant to the use of torture, we allow for it to happen, we get the information which eventually proves to be right and stops a bombing, the terrorists could just as well plan another bombing, or maybe even more to revenge their tortured friend? As far as I am concerned under no circumstances should torture ever be used? Not only should it always be illegal but no matter how pro-torture theorists try to sugar coat it, it will always be immoral. It degrades everyone involved in it, as well as the entire society, it makes everyone a part of an inhumane act that can never guarantee anything. It should not happen under the radar because it would mean that the elected officials that allow it to take place renounce their democratic beliefs and abandon their morals.It should not happen with the approval of the people because then everyone renounces their democratic ideologies and morals the entire society would become more violent which is not something to overlook even if it raises by a very small degree an entire torture related authority and mentality would be born that would only sadden and inherently take its terms on everyones daily livelihood. As we have seen there are no possible situations that might warrant a use of torture since in all given scenarios the trade-off in the long carry through would alwa ys prove to be a very bad one. piece should never trade its morals, its principles and its liberal and democratic values for the smallest odds of saving one, ten, or one million lives.The best way to express this is by thinking about the situation in which the Prime Minister of Italy, Aldo Moro, was kidnapped and when someone suggested the use of torture to find out where he is being held, superior general Carlo Alberto Dalla Chiesa replied Italy can survive the loss of Aldo Moro. It would not survive the introduction of torture. It is not only Italy that could not survive the introduction of torture, but the entire cultivate world. For all the arguments employed above against the use of torture in any kind of scenario, even in the strictly utilitarian one where torture should be used as long as the number of people saved is higher than the number of people tortured and killed, we can throw the humane and moral conclusion that torture should always be vile and immoral and there fore an absolute right against torture is warranted.