Question

Response Questions Part A And B Suppose a man has planted a bomb in New York City, and it will explode in twenty-four hours unless the police are able to find it. A) Is Torture ever Justified? Explain Your Answer In 7 sentences B) Should it be legal for the police to use torture to extract information from the suspected bomber? Explain Your Answer In 8 sentences

Answer 1

**********Please please please rate the answer.It really helps me.Thanks!**************

1.

To the degree that its meaning also includes its moral condemnation, torture needs to be defined carefully. Torture includes intentional causing (intense) pain for purposes of coercion or punishment. Although I emphasize that the act of torture is clearly seen as repellent and should not take place preferably, I offer a non-utilitarian justification to justify torture ethically in specific interrogatory situations.

This statement explores morality carefully and demonstrates that in both situations lethal strength is justified by the omorphicity between cases of immediate and delayed self-defense. I also show that, after one's life has been forfeited, one's rights to the defense of the intended victims are also forfeited. As such, the extraction of information from persons involved in a lethal attack on innocent people is ethically permissible if a request is to be posed for torture. Nevertheless, the strict ethical rationale of an action does not mean the action must be taken in general. Different important questions of constitution and sociology are presented and taken into consideration.

2.

I think torture is almost always moral false and should be strictly forbidden by law for moral reasons. Torture serves for making religions, terrorizing victims ' associate men, punishing accused wrongdoers and even gratifying sadists and bullies and entertaining them. Such applications are moral errors often. The only way to gain important information is by using torture, which can be morally justified. Yet torturers are typically misconductors who obtain information to help them accomplish their unjust aims, even when the torture helps to get information.

And even if the information seekers have only interests, their victims are often innocent, or lack knowledge or are eager enough to deceive their torturers, to avoid torture from being unsuccessful or counterproductive. However, if they can do so with impunity those who are seeking unjust goals and those who seek just goals remain tormented. Thus, torture was performed frequently, although its use was almost always fraudulent.

This means that, in rare situations, the overriding purpose of the law should be to discourage the illegal use of torture, even at the expense of prohibiting the use of torture. Constitutional prohibition should therefore be absolute, for anyone who thinks that torture is useful will always be tempted to try to use it by statute.

**********Please please please rate the answer.It really helps me.Thanks!**************