Argumentative Essay: Is The Use Of Torture Justified?
There are many questions relating to the use of torture against any person whatsoever. As such, there are different perspectives on the ethics of its usage as well. While some believe that the use of torture becomes necessary at times, others believe that whatever the circumstances are, torture can never be justified. Some very pertinent issues related to the use of torture are, “Suppose a child has been kidnapped and a person has been suspected of committing the crime. Is it justifiable to torture that person in order to try to extract information from him about the child? Now suppose the person would not react at all if he is subjected to torture but there is a chance that he would divulge information if his child of the similar age as the
…show more content…
other child is tortured? Can torture be used on the child to save the life of another child?”. This is where different views emerge. While the utilitarian perspective would say that as long as the purpose is served, that is, the child can be saved, the use of torture would not be wrong. On the other hand, the Kantian or the Christian perspective would hold that no matter what the use of torture on any one in any case cannot be justified. Moreover, one child cannot be tortured in order to save the life of another. While the former school of thought believes in the end justifying the means, the latter refutes that. If, now, instead of one child, there were twenty children being held hostage in some unknown place, can the use of one torture on one child in order to save twenty others be warranted? A discussion on torture is not complete without contemplation on these issues.
A similar case had happened in Germany in 2002.
Police in Frankfurt threatened the child kidnapper Magnus Gafgen with violence in order to gain a lead in their investigation but Gafgen had already murdered the victim. When threatened with violence, Gafgen gave in and confessed that he had already killed eleven year old Jakob. After the investigation, the court ordered Gafgen into life imprisonment. In March 2011, Gafgen sued for damages against Daschner’s, the Frankfurt Deputy Police Chief, threat of using “unimaginable pain” against him in order to extract information. A state court in Frankfurt awarded damages of more than 3,000 Euros to the convicted child murderer Magnus Gafgen saying that Gafgen had been subjected to “serious rights violation”. This view of the court was basically derived from the view of deontological ethics that actions should be assessed on the basis of their morality. Thus, even though Gafgen had committed a most heinous crime – kidnapping and killing the child – he still continued to have some basic human rights which could not be violated. This decision of the court was criticized by various groups who argued that the Deputy Police Chief was working with passion to find the kidnapped child within his official capacity and as such, he should not have been faced with charges. The Kantian perspective is driven by the belief that no man should be used as means and should be respected as ends in themselves. As such, he cannot be used as means in
order to reach some end.
other child is tortured? Can torture be used on the child to save the life of another child?”. This is where different views emerge. While the utilitarian perspective would say that as long as the purpose is served, that is, the child can be saved, the use of torture would not be wrong. On the other hand, the Kantian or the Christian perspective would hold that no matter what the use of torture on any one in any case cannot be justified. Moreover, one child cannot be tortured in order to save the life of another. While the former school of thought believes in the end justifying the means, the latter refutes that. If, now, instead of one child, there were twenty children being held hostage in some unknown place, can the use of one torture on one child in order to save twenty others be warranted? A discussion on torture is not complete without contemplation on these issues.
A similar case had happened in Germany in 2002.
Police in Frankfurt threatened the child kidnapper Magnus Gafgen with violence in order to gain a lead in their investigation but Gafgen had already murdered the victim. When threatened with violence, Gafgen gave in and confessed that he had already killed eleven year old Jakob. After the investigation, the court ordered Gafgen into life imprisonment. In March 2011, Gafgen sued for damages against Daschner’s, the Frankfurt Deputy Police Chief, threat of using “unimaginable pain” against him in order to extract information. A state court in Frankfurt awarded damages of more than 3,000 Euros to the convicted child murderer Magnus Gafgen saying that Gafgen had been subjected to “serious rights violation”. This view of the court was basically derived from the view of deontological ethics that actions should be assessed on the basis of their morality. Thus, even though Gafgen had committed a most heinous crime – kidnapping and killing the child – he still continued to have some basic human rights which could not be violated. This decision of the court was criticized by various groups who argued that the Deputy Police Chief was working with passion to find the kidnapped child within his official capacity and as such, he should not have been faced with charges. The Kantian perspective is driven by the belief that no man should be used as means and should be respected as ends in themselves. As such, he cannot be used as means in
order to reach some end.