The debate regarding the ethical acceptance of torturing a person in the War on Terrorism is a difficult decision/stance to take. It fluctuates throughout our society. Even those who have strong spirituals belief may sway when it comes to making the final choice of to torture or not to torture. My opinion is that if you commit the crime you must accept the punishment; but torture. Well, I believe that when a person is tortured they are likely not to confess the truth. They may paint a believable picture, but why would they sell their souls to the enemy. Other societies, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, etc., may believe in torture. They will behead an individual just for the sake of their cause. We, the United States, are not that barbaric, yet
…show more content…
Just because they, another society, do it does not mean that we should do it. In our society there are some who think of the decision in regards to torture, in a biblical aspect, and their decision is made with the belief of “an eye for an eye “. There are some individuals within our social realm who think that no matter what “Thou shalt not kill.” The decision on which side of the fence one will stand is up to that specific individuals. There are some who may just straddle the fence and say that they are neutral. I think that of the many ethical principles, I lean towards the absolute that torturing an individual is never acceptable, even in the War on Terrorism. I take this stance as I believe one will likely not obtain a truthful response. As noted by Costanzo (2005), “However, many survivors of torture report that the truthful information they revealed was intentionally incomplete or mixed with false information. The goal was to appease the torturer, not to reveal the truth. And, because the interrogators were not omniscient, they could not discern which bits of information were true and which were false (Harbury, 2005)” (Costanzo, 2005, p 183). The half-truth could cause many American’s to lose their lives. To torture or not to torture is such a hard stance to
Just because they, another society, do it does not mean that we should do it. In our society there are some who think of the decision in regards to torture, in a biblical aspect, and their decision is made with the belief of “an eye for an eye “. There are some individuals within our social realm who think that no matter what “Thou shalt not kill.” The decision on which side of the fence one will stand is up to that specific individuals. There are some who may just straddle the fence and say that they are neutral. I think that of the many ethical principles, I lean towards the absolute that torturing an individual is never acceptable, even in the War on Terrorism. I take this stance as I believe one will likely not obtain a truthful response. As noted by Costanzo (2005), “However, many survivors of torture report that the truthful information they revealed was intentionally incomplete or mixed with false information. The goal was to appease the torturer, not to reveal the truth. And, because the interrogators were not omniscient, they could not discern which bits of information were true and which were false (Harbury, 2005)” (Costanzo, 2005, p 183). The half-truth could cause many American’s to lose their lives. To torture or not to torture is such a hard stance to