The essay “In Defense of Torture”, Sam Harris argues about the torturing of terrorists. Starting his essay, he provides a realistic perspective, giving real life examples in which the reader agrees with the concept of torture. Harris's perspective goes as far as saying “picture your little seven-year-old daughter being slowly asphyxiated in a warehouse just five minutes away...” this perspective Harris puts onto the reader is quite scary. In the further evolution of his argument Harris reveals his grandfather was an active participant in the Second World War as a pilot, and in war, dropped bombs over thousands of innocent people, which resulted in collateral damage. Harris states that torturing should only be used as getting the truth out of an individual and that collateral damage should not be. Harris's argument to me is found to be a dead end. The world should not be focusing on the circumstances of torturing but instead, how to make the world better. Our world strives for world peace, and understanding this is the authors perspective, he fails to mention or include how to better the laws and fight against criminals. Harris inputs a lot of information about war, and gives examples between collateral damage and torturing. Collateral is something that may not be fully controlled, almost like a ripple affect. Although there is so much about war in the essay, Harris feels there should be a difference in torturing, torturing to Harris, should be only to get the truth and should not affect innocent people, to which I agree.
The essay “In Defense of Torture”, Sam Harris argues about the torturing of terrorists. Starting his essay, he provides a realistic perspective, giving real life examples in which the reader agrees with the concept of torture. Harris's perspective goes as far as saying “picture your little seven-year-old daughter being slowly asphyxiated in a warehouse just five minutes away...” this perspective Harris puts onto the reader is quite scary. In the further evolution of his argument Harris reveals his grandfather was an active participant in the Second World War as a pilot, and in war, dropped bombs over thousands of innocent people, which resulted in collateral damage. Harris states that torturing should only be used as getting the truth out of an individual and that collateral damage should not be. Harris's argument to me is found to be a dead end. The world should not be focusing on the circumstances of torturing but instead, how to make the world better. Our world strives for world peace, and understanding this is the authors perspective, he fails to mention or include how to better the laws and fight against criminals. Harris inputs a lot of information about war, and gives examples between collateral damage and torturing. Collateral is something that may not be fully controlled, almost like a ripple affect. Although there is so much about war in the essay, Harris feels there should be a difference in torturing, torturing to Harris, should be only to get the truth and should not affect innocent people, to which I agree.