A typical downshifted paragraph could (but might not) look like the following:
the idea that B & G are responding to,
their response to that idea (perhaps including a quotation),
some explanation and development of their response (if necessary),
your response to their refutation,
some explanation of your point of view (if necessary), and then
evidence and detail to support your point of view.
Note that any of the above points might take more than one sentence, but try to show a little self control in the early sentences of the paragraph
The last point will certainly take more than one sentence, so plan the points that come before wisely. You don't want to write a whole essay here -- just one paragraph in what could be a longer essay.
Don't forget to provide transitions that clearly indicate when you are representing B & G's ideas and when you are providing your own.
Still, try to write the paragraph in the third person. Every reader will know that you are writing the essay. Concentrate on the ideas, not yourself. Remember, you are trying to persuade the reader that a certain IDEA is true or false.
Also, limit the focus to a single, narrowly defined idea. Imagine that you will be writing other paragraphs in a longer essay.
Please post the paragraph by Sunday at 5 PM. I know you have a paragraph portfolio due on Monday, but you should have been working on that project for weeks.
I believe that Bagaric and Clarke are wrong when they say that torture is justifiable in a few cases, specifically when an innocent person’s life hangs in the balance. I believe that torture is not justifiable, even when somebody is in imminent danger, because torture hardly ever compels the tortured to give up good, accurate intelligence. When somebody is being tortured they are quick to tell the torturer anything, absolutely anything that will end the miserably painful interrogation. Because of that it is no use for somebody to be tortured and treated as a subhuman when somebody else’s life hangs in the balance. It is probable that the person being tortured knows nothing about the innocent person and that he will tell the torturer anything that he wants to hear, meaning that the rescue team to save the innocent person will then be acting on inaccurate information. That being said, I believe Bigaric and Clarke’s refutation for the use of torture is insubstantial because torture is inhumane and hardly ever effective in extracting information from the tortured.
ReplyDeleteBagaric and Clarke bring up the point of how we as a society react to quickly and reflexive toward torture. They believe that judging the use of torture to quickly causes “an enormous amount of injustice and suffering in our society.” Torture should be, in their opinion, used as a means to save an innocent life in an immediate situation. A real life example that they used to support torture was in the case of terror. In this situation the use of torture/violence previous to the situation could hypothetically save innocent lives. However, while they stand behind the belief that in some situations torture is permissible, torture in any case should not be permissible. Once torture is allowed in some small situations, it is a matter of time before torture would be allowed for all situations. This ‘slippery slope’ of use of torture would eventually lead to the dehumanization of society.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the world, torture is observed as something that should not be used often, if at all. Bagaric and Clarke’s article argues that “the floodgates are already open—torture is used widely.” They claim that the slippery slope argument is void because many countries, including “the United States, Japan, and France,” all use torture. However, this fact does not mean that the world should lose all moral dignity and allow torture to be legalized. In fact, the knowledge that torture is spreading should increase the efforts to outlaw and stop it. The writers also argue that torture is “beneath the radar of accountability” because its ban. On the contrary, actions are banned because they are bad. Another claim the article makes against the slippery slope theory is that “legalization in very rare circumstances would in fact reduce instances of it.” Logically, legalization will not stop any countries willing to torture illegally, so the only effect of legalization can be an increase in torture.
ReplyDeleteBy Bagaric and Clarke focusing on “physical pressure” and “physical integrity” as methods of torture, they overlook the dehumanization aspect. People will try many methods of psychological torture that have unknown effects therefore the best methods will be tested beforehand. They will test these methods on subjects first because they must know the most effective route to the information. My point is we won’t always be able to save the victim with torture because it isn’t a clear shot like the hostage situation. Instead, we should at least try to always treat the wrongdoer and get them normal instead of doing the complete opposite. Likewise, we don’t want the next generations scheming on how to torture people for a possible rescue, but rather ways to better the wrongdoer to stop them from harming anyone else.
ReplyDeleteWhen Bagaric and Clarke state that torture is justifiable in certain cases, such as saving an innocent person's life, I have to disagree with it. I believe that torture is never justifiable, even when a person is in immediate danger, because torturing someone isn't going to make them want to give up the information that is needed. When being tortured, a person may just say what the torturer wants to hear, whether it is truthful or not. Because of this, the torturing would have been pointless because the information may not be accurate, so the innocent person could still be in danger, and the tortured has been hurt, so now there are two people that have been treated unfairly. It is also very possible that the person being tortured doesn't have the information that the torturer is looking for, again causing him to tell the torturer whatever he wants to hear whether the information is accurate of not.
ReplyDeleteBagaric and Clarke refute the belief that life-saving torture will dehumanize the torturer. The authors expand on their idea and state that for many years, “people have been inflicting pain on individuals and sustained no demonstrable moral bruises”; the authors even compare surgeons to torturers because they inflict pain on their victims in order to save a life. However, life-saving torture can be dehumanizing to the torturer especially if the torture is cruel and extreme. Also, surgeons cannot be compared to individuals that torture others because the patient often volunteers to have the surgery, and the surgery is in no way dehumanizing to the patient in the way that torture could be.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main points in the essay is that torture is generally said to dehumanize society. Bagaric and Clarke say no, dehumanization simply is not true because, “a society that elects to favor the interests of the wrongdoer over those of the innocent…is in need of serious ethical rewiring.” Thus, Bagaric and Clarke point out that not doing whatever you can, such as torture, to save the innocent victim is more dehumanizing than the act of torturing itself. However, torture is dehumanizing for a variety of reasons. Chiefly among them, society knows that torture is not the only option to save an innocent person’s life. Bagaric and Clarke mistakenly assume that torture is the only technique interrogators can use in order to get potential lifesaving information out of the wrongdoer. Therefore, torture is dehumanizing on a society because interrogators have other options to save the innocent victim. For instance, instead of torture they could give the suspect a reward for information helping save an innocent victim. Another reason torture is a poor option is often the people that are being tortured will say anything they can just to get the torture to stop. As a result of the lying, false leads are followed and it does not help save the innocent victim. Torture being doled out without actually helping or saving anyone definitely contributes to the dehumanizing of society and as long as there is little scientific evidence that torture works it will continue to dehumanize society.
ReplyDeleteBagaric and Clarke exclaim that torture is justifiable because it is saving lives. This is not always true. When torturing someone, correct and liable information is not always retrieved. The direct action of torturing someone does not mean that lives will be immediately saved. Because of this fact, torturing does not always prove affective. Bargaric and Clarke explain that torturing is just like a doctor amputating a patient's leg. The doctors are hurting the person, but ultimately saving their life. Torturing is the same, hurting someone to save other's lives. This reasoning is untrue as well. The doctor situation is not the same. Torture is inhumane, where medicine is not.
ReplyDeleteOne of the notions that Bagaric and Clarke refute is the slippery slope argument. That is allowing torture in a limited context will actually increase its occurrences. Bagaric and Clarke state, “The floodgates are already open - torture is used widely, despite the absolute legal prohibitions against it.” They also say that banning it does not change much since torturing continues under the table, discreetly. Furthermore, the authors feel that legalization in rare cases would reduce instances of torture. However, making something legal is outright making it acceptable. When something is acceptable it will obviously lead to an increase in its frequency. People can take advantage of torture being legalized and it may get out of hand by it being used in fairly trivial situations. For example, professors sometimes say that for legitimate reasons assignments may be handed in late. This has lead to students abusing this luxury and handing in assignments late and making up stories.
ReplyDeleteBagaric and Clarke discuss the legitimacy of torture by comparing it to a hostage situation in which a wrongdoer is threatening to kill and innocent person. They believe that torture is justifiable because it is the same thing as the police being allowed to shoot the wrongdoer to save the innocent hostage. However, this analogy is exaggerated. Not all torture scenarios involve an immediate life or death situation. The torturer may be torturing the wrongdoer to find out information such as the location of supplies or location of a leader. These examples do not compare to a life or death situation where police would have authority to kill the wrongdoer. Therefore, Bagaric and Clarke’s argument does not justify being allowed to practice torture.
ReplyDeleteBagaric and Clark make the argument that the possibility of saving lives justifies the act of torture. I believe that torture is never justifiable. The information that comes out of torture is rarely legitimate, and often is just a false positive coerced from the prisoner, through often questionable and dehumanizing methods. The idea that we are subjecting people to horrific violent acts, with only the possibility of a helpful return is appalling. Torture should never be condoned it’s a slippery slope one that once allowed becomes incredibly difficult to stop, if we even allow torture at all we won’t be able to come back from that.
ReplyDeleteThe essay “Torture: When the Unthinkable is Morally Permissible” vehemently claims that torture causes dehumanization to society as a whole. According to Bagaric and Clarke, that cannot ever be the case because to consider the interests of the of wrongdoer is “verging on moral indecency.” They continue that it is better to inflict a small amount of harm to the wrongdoer to save the life of the innocent. Although many would agree that torture helps in certain situations, the act of allowing it is detrimental to the society as a whole. Those situations cannot be clearly shown. There have been many chances to rid developed countries of torture through the Geneva Convention and other legislation. However, many believe allowing “enhanced interrogation techniques” will somehow help the population. While many alternatives may not be as effective, there must be something that would make a wrongdoer share live-saving information. Instead of repeatedly beating them, there could be incentives to share information, like early release or a shortened sentence. Instead of water-boarding wrongdoers, they could give financial help that goes towards their families while they remain in prison. Instead of hurting, we should be helping. The priority should go to the innocent while the wrongdoer has nothing. If only the innocent knew what is done to those that wronged them. Surely they would not act like Bagaric and Clarke.
ReplyDeleteIn Bagaric and Clarke's article, they present the counterargument that one can never be sure that torturing a "wrongdoer" will save an innocent person's life. In response to this, they compare this to a hostage situation in which the criminal's gun may be empty, but police are still required shoot him. The problem with that comparison is that the "wrongdoer" being tortured may not be a wrongdoer at all. A person who takes hostages is either ready to harm someone, or trying to give the illusion that they are willing to harm someone. This puts them in the "wrongdoer" position no matter what. On the other hand, someone being tortured may be completely innocent and have no information to give. Consequently, this would save zero lives, and harm at least one.
ReplyDelete