“At the moment, there is a myth in circulation, a fable that goes something like this: Radical terrorists will take advantage of our fussy legality, so we may have to suspend it to beat them. Radical terrorists mock our namby-pamby prisons, so we must make them tougher. Radical terrorists are nasty, so to defeat them we have to be nastier.” (Applebaum). This is the story being used for validating of torture. There is no proof that this story has any truth.
Americans know “racial profiling is both morally wrong and ineffective”, but they rather be safe than sorry (Chavez 563). Americans only get the idea that all middle easterners are terrorists because media has taken the role of portraying them in such a way to plants terror in Americans (Spurlock). People have gotten to the point of people being “singled out” because of looking certain way or because people around them feel uncomfortable (Chavez 569).
Depriving a person of his will to live is the same, if not worse than killing that person. If murder is illegal under all circumstances, then torture should be illegal. Torture is unimaginable and permanent scaring of the body and soul (Dieringer). Torture is inhumane because it severely injures human bodies to a degree that can never be fixed. Torture has tremendous negative physical effects on the human body.
Relativism Relativism The article of “Some Moral Minima” written by Lenn Goodman, discusses issues in our society he believes to be truly unethical and wrong. Some cultures believe the things mentioned by Goodman to be ethical and acceptable in their culture because it is they way they way have been doing things for many years. Some points discussed by Goodman are genocide, terrorism, and rape. The first example from Goodman is genocide, the murdering or extermination of an entire race or culture. Mass murder is compared to genocide and an example would be when nations or groups are at war with each other.
During times of war, it is understandable that the Government will be more apt to protect its people. In the United States, terrorism has become a major concern. This has come to light more recently after the 9/11 attack in 2004. Americans have been told that terrorism is their biggest enemy. Though in the attempts to obtain security, the people of the United States are giving up their freedoms and others are having those same freedoms taken away from them.
“The Case for Torture”, by Michael Levin and “Torture’s Terrible Toll”, by John McCain are two pieces of writing that argue the pros and cons of using torture as a means to receive information from terrorists. Although the use of torture to secure information is viewed differently by each author, the moral and human rights of every individual is agreed upon by both Levin and McCain. While Levin views torture as necessary in extreme life threatening circumstances, McCain views it as unconstitutional and believes that it is inhumane and goes against individual human rights. In the world today, where terrorist threats seem to be a normal occurrence, there is no doubt that the country must be ready and willing to do whatever is necessary to keep
The Real Effects of Torture “If we are unwilling to torture, we should be willing to wage modern war.”(Harris). This quote is from the article “In Defense of Torture” where author Sam Harris makes a stance stating that torture should be legal. Throughout this article Harris makes comparisons between the lives of innocent people and the lives of terrorists and other war criminals. His main point of argument is that dropping a bomb on a foreign country creates collateral damage killing some innocent people along the way, and that collateral damage is more detrimental to a foreign country than torturing people for information. Harris provides a good point of argument with these examples, however, this argument is flawed.
They believe this was a right that they were given by our Four Fathers, which is clearly not true. Yes, they have the freedom of speech but when should the freedom be taken away? What about the rights of the innocent victims and their families? Hate crimes, because of their nature will always lead to violence and this is not a freedom that people should have. In my opinion, the penalties for hate crimes should continue to be more severe than that of a regular crime because so many innocent people are injured and even killed simply because they are different.
The ones that are against racial profiling have thought of an alternative solution, which is behavioral profiling. Behavioral profiling, hence the name, means to base the law enforcers' suspicion according to that person’s behavior instead of race. With this more effective system, it balances our protection from both terrorism and violating someone’s civil rights. One reasonable example on why we shouldn’t racial profile is the popular bomber in United Kingdom, Richard Reid, who doesn’t fit the profile that they have created for terrorists. Individuals have also made good arguments about the negative outcome that racial profiling might bring to our society.
Evidently, the impacts of the rise of religious fundamentalism was undeniably significant and detrimental on both a regional and global level. However, the detrimental implications of the rise of religious fundamentalism on a global level created the pressing need to enhancing international cooperation against the threat of religious extremism and terrorism. Thus, while the impact of religious fundamentalism is mostly detrimental and negative on both global and regional levels, the global cooperation against terrorism is the only positively promising consequence that developed due to the rise of religious fundamentalism. On the regional level, the rise of religious fundamentalism had detrimental implications on regional security and also threatened the secular foundations of states. The fundamental basis and legitimacy of secular states lies on the will of the people instead of religion on its own hence, the rise of religious fundamentalism challenges the secular states basic