Argument on torture

We are in a country among nations working to dominate our very lives, health and destiny. The NWO control is worldwide and intend to keep their control if they can. You can do more than just complain, you will learn now what to do.

Argument on torture

Indirect Theories On indirect theories, animals do not warrant our moral concern on their own, but may warrant concern only in so far as they are appropriately related to human beings. The implications these sorts of theories have for the proper treatment of animals will be explored after that.

Finally, two common methods of arguing against indirect theories will be discussed. One of the earliest and clearest expressions of this kind Argument on torture view comes to us from Aristotle B.

According to Aristotle, there is a natural hierarchy of living beings. The different levels are determined by the abilities present in the beings due to Argument on torture natures. While plants, animals, and human beings are all capable of taking in nutrition and growing, only animals and human beings are capable of conscious experience.

This means that plants, being inferior to animals and human beings, have the function of serving the needs of animals and human beings. Likewise, human beings are superior to animals because human beings have the capacity for using reason to guide their conduct, while animals lack this ability and must instead rely on instinct.

It follows, therefore, that the function of animals is to serve the needs of human beings. This, according to Aristotle, is "natural and expedient" Regan and Singer, Following Aristotle, the Christian philosopher St.

Thomas Aquinas argues that since only beings that are rational are capable of determining their actions, they are the only beings towards which we should extend concern "for their own sakes" Regan and Singer, Aquinas believes that if a being cannot direct its own actions then others must do so; these sorts of beings are merely instruments.

Instruments exist for the sake of people that use them, not for their own sake. Since animals cannot direct their own actions, they are merely instruments and exist for the sake of the human beings that direct their actions.

Aquinas believes that his view follows from the fact that God is the last end of the universe, and that it is only by using the human intellect that one can gain knowledge and understanding of God.

Since only human beings are capable of achieving this final end, all other beings exist for the sake of human beings and their achievement of this final end of the universe. Remnants of these sorts of views remain in justifications for discounting the interests of animals on the basis of the food chain.

On this line of thought, if one kind of being regularly eats another kind of being, then the first is said to be higher on the food chain. If one being is higher than another on the food chain, then it is natural for that being to use the other in the furtherance of its interests.

Since this sort of behavior is natural, it does not require any further moral justification. Kant developed a highly influential moral theory according to which autonomy is a necessary property to be the kind of being whose interests are to count direclty in the moral assessment of actions Kant, According to Kant, morally permissible actions are those actions that could be willed by all rational individuals in the circumstances.

While both animals and human beings have desires that can compel them to action, only human beings are capable of standing back from their desires and choosing which course of action to take.

This ability is manifested by our wills. Since animals lack this ability, they lack a will, and therefore are not autonomous.

According to Kant, the only thing with any intrinsic value is a good will. Since animals have no wills at all, they cannot have good wills; they therefore do not have any intrinsic value. Rather than simply relying on the fact that it is "natural" for rational and autonomous beings to use non-rational beings as they see fit, Kant instead provides an argument for the relevance of rationality and autonomy.

A theory is a Kantian theory, then, if it provides an account of the properties that human beings have and animals lack that warrants our according human beings a very strong moral status while denying animals any kind of moral status at all. Cartesian Theories Another reason to deny that animals deserve direct concern arises from the belief that animals are not conscious, and therefore have no interests or well-being to take into consideration when considering the effects of our actions.

Argument on torture

However, since they lack a welfare, there is nothing to take directly into account when acting. One of the clearest and most forceful denials of animal consciousness is developed by Rene Descarteswho argues that animals are automata that might act as if they are conscious, but really are not so Regan and Singer, Writing during the time when a mechanistic view of the natural world was replacing the Aristotelian conception, Descartes believed that all of animal behavior could be explained in purely mechanistic terms, and that no reference to conscious episodes was required for such an explanation.

Since it is possible to explain animal behavior without reference to inner episodes of awareness, doing so is simpler than relying on the assumption that animals are conscious, and is therefore the preferred explanation.

Descartes anticipates the response that his reasoning, if applicable to animal behavior, should apply equally well to human behavior. The mechanistic explanation of behavior does not apply to human beings, according to Descartes, for two reasons.

First, human beings are capable of complex and novel behavior.Oct 17,  · In Defense of Torture. By Sam Harris.

I will now present an argument for the use of torture in rare circumstances. While many people have objected, on . Oct 17,  · In Defense of Torture. By Sam Harris. I will now present an argument for the use of torture in rare circumstances. While many people have objected, on . the gottfried bill has been resurected now in where in it failed.

if it passes this year it will compromise all of our civil rights because the bill sanctions torture carried out by medical professionals that do it for qualified authorities.

The utiliarian argument for torture interrogation, therefore, must justify the additional sacrifice of the torturers—made vulnerable to "perpetration-induced traumatic stress," [61] severe social stigma, and possibly spiritual turmoil—or develop some hitherto-unknown . Hundreds of Proofs of God’s Existence Formerly: Over Three Hundred Proofs of God’s Existence Originally adapted from a forum on the Internet Infidels.

An Argument on Torture Essay. Dictionary - An Argument on Torture Essay introduction. com defines torture as “the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

” A second definition at dictionary. com states torture as “extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.

Stop Adding Zeroes | Slate Star Codex