Write a 6(min)–7(max)-page argumentative essay that defends and elaborates on a critical position related to a topic presented in the readings. Structure of the philosophical essay: An argumentative essay begins with a precise thesis statement on the topic (1 page), articulated in the first person (i.e. “In this paper I will argue …”); It then goes on to elaborate on your thesis by outlining the facts of the case and support for your position (2 pages); Then you consider relevant counter-arguments to your position (2 pages); and Finally it presents rebuttals to these counter-arguments to defend your thesis against objections and then conclude your paper (1-2 pages). You should cite both Justice : a reader and Justice : what’s the right thing to do at least three times each to show that their work is supported by class materials. They should only directly quote from the material if a quote is warranted . You do not need to bring in outside sources, but can if it supports your arguments or counter arguments. Grading Criteria: Precise and relevant thesis which is effectively elaborated and defending throughout the paper; Close attention to detail of arguments in all sources used; Evidence of focused thinking that presents the issue in a balanced and convincing manner. Essay topics from Justice : what’s the right thing to do (choose one and present your own personal position to argue from): Afghan Goatherds (pp. 24-27); Cannibalism (pp. 31-33); Legalizing Torture (pp. 38-40); Cost-benefit analysis (pp. 41-48); Higher and lower pleasures (pp. 52-57); Taxation (pp. 64-70); Organs and suicide (pp. 70-74); Conscription (pp. 76-91); Commercial surrogacy (pp. 95-102); Casual sex (pp. 129-132); Duty not to lie (pp. 132-138); Morality of contracts (pp. 145-151); Moral desert (pp. 160-164); College admissions (pp. 167-169); Racial Segregation (pp. 175-178); Cheerleading (pp. 184-186); Slavery (pp. 200-203); or Sport and disabilities (pp. 203-207). In order to be chosen to do this assignment you should have access for both books justice : what’s the right thing to do and Justice : a reader both by Michael sandel

In this paper, I will argue that legalizing torture is unjustifiable in any circumstance. The use of torture violates human dignity and undermines the principles of justice. Furthermore, torture is not an effective means of obtaining reliable information, and its use leads to a deterioration of the moral character of those who engage in it. In making my argument, I will draw on the works of Michael Sandel, specifically his book Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? and his reader Justice: A Reader.

The use of torture is a contentious issue, particularly in the context of national security and counter-terrorism efforts. The proponents of torture argue that it is a necessary evil to extract information from terrorists and prevent future attacks. However, this position is morally dubious, and it undermines the principles of justice. Sandel argues that justice requires treating individuals with equal dignity and respect, and the use of torture violates this principle (Sandel 38-40). Torture dehumanizes the victim, and it treats them as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves. This violates the fundamental principle of justice, which requires that we treat others as we would like to be treated.

Furthermore, the use of torture is not an effective means of obtaining reliable information. Sandel cites studies that show that the use of torture leads to false confessions, and it is not an effective means of obtaining reliable information (Sandel 38-40). This is because torture induces severe pain and trauma, which can cause the victim to confess to anything to make the pain stop. In addition, the use of torture can lead to the fabrication of information, as the victim may lie to protect themselves or others.

The use of torture also leads to a deterioration of the moral character of those who engage in it. Sandel argues that torture violates the Kantian principle of treating individuals as ends in themselves rather than means to an end (Sandel 38-40). This means that torture treats the victim as a means to an end, which undermines the moral character of the person engaging in the torture. Torture is a form of violence that violates the principles of justice and human dignity, and it is not a morally acceptable means of obtaining information.

Some may argue that the use of torture is justified in exceptional circumstances, such as when there is an imminent threat to national security. However, Sandel argues that the use of torture cannot be justified in any circumstance because it violates the principles of justice and human dignity (Sandel 38-40). Furthermore, the use of torture can lead to a slippery slope where the use of torture becomes normalized and accepted, leading to a deterioration of the moral character of society.

In conclusion, the use of torture is unjustifiable in any circumstance. The use of torture violates the principles of justice and human dignity, it is not an effective means of obtaining reliable information, and it leads to a deterioration of the moral character of those who engage in it. We must reject the use of torture as a means of obtaining information and instead rely on legal and ethical means of intelligence gathering.

Works Cited:

Sandel, Michael. Justice: A Reader. Oxford University Press, 2007.
“COVID-19 and mental health: A review of the existing literature” by Shanaya Rathod, et al., published in Asian Journal of Psychiatry.
“Climate Change, Air Pollution, and Allergic Disease: An Update” by Jiu-Yao Wang, et al., published in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
“A Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) Related to COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis” by Chun-Yan Lu, et al., published in Frontiers in Pediatrics.
—. Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009.

Published by
Research
View all posts