Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are prime examples of how the use of torture can become unlawful if not properly controlled. Despite the unethical and questionable methods of torturous counterinsurgency committed in the past, there are still occasions when torture could be necessary in order to achieve a specific goal. In this paper I will argue that torture can be morally justified in extreme emergencies, and only as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted. However, I will also argue that despite its moral permissibility, torture should not to be legalized or otherwise institutionalized. In order to fully understand why torture may be morally justifiable we must first have a firm understanding of what torture is, and how it may also be morally impermissible.
Is Torture Ever Justified? Terrorism and Civil Liberties The Economist In this piece “Is Torture Ever Justified?” the issue of torture being used on enemies during interrogation is the focus and it seems to me the author argues that it is not justifiable but only in certain circumstances. I would argue with him on his claim, I do not feel that torture is ever justifiable regardless of how dire the situation. According to this article torture is banned from almost everything. There are treaties set in place such as the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention against Torture that are against it “consider it along with genocide, torture is the only crime that every state must punish it no matter what”.
The tone that Alter uses is positive, yet remains firm. He focuses on trying to convince his audience that torture should be legal in some circumstances. He uses a tone that elicits patriotism from readers because he wants to provoke them so they will take his side. When he state “torture, ok, not cattle prods or rubber hoses, but something to jump-start the stalled investigation of the greatest crime in American history.” he is referencing the September 11th attacks, and asserts that nothing has really been done about the individuals responsible. And in order for this tone to work, Alter needs to have a specific audience in mind.
Contemplating the Moral Permissibility of Torture This paper is an evaluation of a work by Henry Shue in which he writes about torture. Shue points out that while torture is a violation of most international law, it continues to be used extensively throughout the world and that its use may actually be on the rise. Governments are in effect “talking the talk” in their condemnation of torture but the reality is that they are not “walking the walk” as they institute the use of torture for various means of self preservation. Shue’s primary goal seems to be to show that torture is a special entity that is far worse than even death because it is an assault against the defenseless. Shue does not necessarily attempt to show that torture is never justified.
Levin’s target audience is Americans because his use of American symbolism such as “July 4,” and “unconstitutional.” In addition, the United States is not the only victim of terrorist attacks. Many countries around the world also fall prey to terrorism. According to Levin, begins his essay with a brief description of how he believes that societies view the subject of torture as negative thing. He justifies his reasoning on torture by allowing it in order to save innocent lives. Levin’s second claim is that the judicial system is a slow process when time is a factor and the only way to speed it up is by torture.
He also believed that slavery was sinful and against some religions. He was the prime mover in the abolition of slavery in England. In his article Thomas Thompson is trying to prove “that the African trade for negro slaves is consistent with the principles of humanity and revealed religion”. But Sharp argues that it’s against law of nature, humanity, moral laws and natural Equality. For example Sharp revealed that the Jewish religion which says they should love others as themselves still owned slaves.
Charlie agrees to do but he cautions them that once they agree to the deal there is no turning back. For five there answer to their problems is tied up to a chair (Charlie). They kidnapped Charlie in order to get the money to pay the debt that Avery had. But in the end his friend was screwed him over in the end. Avery and his sister got caught by Charlie and Lono.
"The unconscious is not a concept, it is a rhetorical device." Thus wrote Stanley Fish in his article, "Withholding the Missing Portion". Fish's article argues that Freud's primary concern in his writings is to convince the reader of the strength of his interpretations and the validity of his theory through his clever use of rhetoric. In particular, Fish refers to the rôle of the unconscious in Freud's theory, arguing that it can be freely manipulated by Freud in such a way that it can appear to account for any data acquired in practice. This attitude reflects the commonly-held view amongst contemporary scientists that Freud's theories are unscientific.
With time, the concerns over slavery became a controversy of the morality verse the importance of it. In the first document, Thomas Jefferson explains the exploitation of discrimination among the slaves by writing, “The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other” (Document 1, Thomas Jefferson Wrestles with Slavery, 1785, p 387). He also testifies that the exploitation belittles a man, “The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances” (Document 1, Thomas Jefferson Wrestles with Slavery, 1785, 388). Slavery was also frowned upon because of the religious aspects of it being sinful and discriminatory. ‘…a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?
The existence of interpersonal communication is a given in persuasion research. Although one could conceivably be persuaded by the facts alone (without the intervention of a source), that would generally be characterized as learning rather than persuasion. The only controversial aspect of the above definition is the inclusion of the word intentional. It seems to this writer that receivers who overhear an argument and find it convincing have been persuaded, even though the source never intended to convince them, however, this quibble with the definition need not affect its adoption here. Which, verifies the studies of effectiveness and risk with attempting to use humor with persuasion,