"Torture of a person who is a threat to our country's freedom is acceptable as long as the person does not die."
Previously I stated that I believed strategic torture which did not damage the sanity of the subject who was a threat could be acceptable. After completing the book, however, I've changed my mind. I now believe you cannot torture someone in any manner and not damage their sanity and their values. Torture, whether the individual dies or not, is violating the person's personal knowledge and can lead to such mental destitution, whatever information they can provide maybe faulty.
The torture of a person who is simply a threat, but where no new knowledge can be gleaned from their torture, is simply heartless. They have made decisions and have had experiences which defined their current state by torturing them, in hopes of reform, their mental state will simply become confused and unreliable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I agree. In the book, Winston confesses to a number of crimes he didn't commit, because the torture was so unbearable. That defeats the purpose of tortuing for information. In the past during the witch trials, many girls admitted to being withces because they were tortured. When a person is that vulnerable and desperate, there's no way to tell if the confession is valid or not.
-Carly Haeck
I agree with both posts; the goal of torture is to completely break a person so that they will confess with the intent to end their own suffering. But, in cases like Winston's in 1984, this predictably ends in false confessions - it is not only those who are guilty who are susceptible to pain, and when a person is in a situation of unimaginable agony, human nature tells them to do whatever they can to end it. Torture is not only completely inhumane, but not foolproof by any means - and, if anything, has the opposite effect of what is intended.
-Hannah
Again, I agree! If you were innocent and being tortured, you would be in such discomfort that you would confess anyway to stop the pain. If someone may have information about the subject they're being tortured for, they could be in such extensive pain they may utter something completely wrong.
Lillian, I had the same viewpoint as you before 1984, but also changed my mind.
I believe the torture of anyone is completely unacceptable. The fact that Winston would rather die than be tortured shows me that torture should never be used as a way of "teaching someone a lesson," or getting information. Like Hannah said, it is completely inhumane and wrong. How any human can torture another is a concept I will never grasp.
The use of torture in the book was not for Winston to admit to crimes that he committed, the purpose of the torture was to break Winston both mentally and physically so that he would emerge as a mindless drone completely loyal to the party. Winston admitted to all the crimes that he committed, but the Party wanted him to believe in their philosophies. The use of torture can be damaging and is completely inhumane. Physical torture is something that should never be used from one human to another because the pain the pain that it induces is something that is so unbearable that one would rather die than endure it further, like the rest of you have said before. I can not say that all types of torture are unacceptable or ineffective. I don't mean strapping somebody into a machine and turing the dial up to 100, but if someone where to use mental and verbal torture, it could be just as effective. In 1984, the Party was finally able to break Winston of his independence when the strapped the helmet of rats to him. they produced Winston's worst fear and exploited it within him. I don't think that the Party was ever going to open the lever to make the rats attack him. They knew that if they could mess with Winston's mind, they could get him to crack. Mental and verbal torture are very effective, because rather than test the physical endurance of a person this type of torture goes into the very mind of a person and let's a person's imagination eat them apart from the inside out. Personally, I think that this type of torture could be just as painful as physical torture. But the purpose of torture is not inducing pain within a person, but having leverage over them. If that is the case, verbal torture could be ethical and effective. If a person could use diction well enough to make a person's mind wander and race so much, they can trap them into the truth. Sort of like of version of Aristotle's appeals if you think about it. Overall, I think that some types of torture are unethical, but others could be just as effective and not as unethical.
In theory, I agree with the statement . In an ideal world, torture dehumanizes both the torturer and the tortured. It is also, as Carly pointed out earlier, a flawed practice. The information gathered cannot be trusted.
However, if there was a situation in which the torture of a single criminal could save thousands of lives, would it be acceptable? If a terrorist with information on an upcoming nerve-gas bombing seemed like he might respond to torture and divulge the information, is his safety really worth the thousands that will die? I am not saying torture is an acceptable interrogation method, I am simply wondering if there is a point at which the information needed is so important that the destruction of a human being's mind and body is a logical price to pay.
-Sam Dunnington
I agree that torture of any kind on any individual is unacceptable because, no matter their social status or threat to a country's freedom, torture in anyway can break someone's sanity and disrupt their morals and values. In 1984, Winston was tortured until he was in absolute pain and his mental state changed and believed that he loved Big Brother. Individuals have the right to freedom of speech as it is their natural right and when a country decides to torture them for any reason, it violates that right.
-Amanda Jones
I agree, because it has been proven over and over (and it is suggested in 1984) that torture provides unreliable evidence because the victim will say or do anything to make it stop. There's always the person that asks, "But what if thousands of people could be saved?" and I don't know truly what I would think if that situation ever really did happen, but as it sits with me now, torture is purely inhumane.
-Genna
I agree with Lilian. I was watching this movie, Rendition, and it in they captured this man they thought had information about a terrorist group. They held him captive and away from his family for months, and tortured him. In no way is this acceptable. Not only is torture cruel, but who decides who is a threat? How can the government tell? If they simply make decisions off suspicions any one could be considered a threat.
There is a reason everyone has the right to a trial. Its because it is not up to us to decide their fate or whether they are a threat or not, guilty or innocent.
Also, Carly brings up a good point. How would we know if the confessions were valid? Anyone would lie to be spared the horrible torture they might face!
-Georgia
Post a Comment