Month: January 2015

Imagine that a known criminal is holding your family hostage. They are tied up with guns pointing at them.  One of the known criminal’s accomplices is sitting in the same room as you and is gloating rather than concealing their guilt. The accomplice will not tell you where your family is and how to help them. This means the only way to save your family is to torture the accomplice in front of you. By torturing that person you can obtain the relevant information to save your family. The use of torture is the only and best way to insure your family’s safety. Surely you would want to torture the accomplice and save the lives of your family? Or would you prefer to do nothing and let them die, a slow and painful death? Could you live with yourself knowing you did not do all you could to save them? The situation above is a personalized version of the ‘ticking-bomb’ case.

In most cases the ‘ticking-bomb’ case is not enough to persuade people of the justified use of torture. The original ‘ticking-bomb’ case is that there is a bomb in a nearby city and the culprit is in front of you. Do you torture him, locate the bomb and save many lives? Or do you allow thousands of innocent people to die? Would you be able to live with yourself knowing that you could have prevented the bombings? But despite the immense guilt of not acting, most people would be unwilling to torture the culprit to get the information. Without this information, the bomb would inevitably  go off and potentially a lot of people would die. Is this more immoral than torturing one psychopath who is willing to kill innocent people without the slightest hint of remorse?

These are the very same people who would be willing to drop bombs on Iraq and Afghanistan. Their innocent victims will die or at the very least be severely mutilated. They will remain forever ‘name less’. In contrast  torture victims hold on to their names. This is unjust. While torture is up close and personal it is a necessary evil to protect mankind and the lives of the innocent.

During a war a bomber pilot returning to base after releasing his bombs upon a civilian target killing hundreds of people including women and children is perceived as a hero. Whereas a torturer who has never killed a person, but has tortured people to gain vital information to save soldiers and civilian lives is viewed as immoral. This is because they are viewed with different levels of culpability. The torturer, who took actions that went against the Geneva Convention, will be viewed as a villain as though it was a necessary woe. Torture is viewed as immoral as people do not agree with the idea of torture and do not condone its use. Although this is the only way to save lives with the absolute minimal loss of life. Torture is the only way to truly protect a country from the threat of terrorism, nuclear war and cyber attacks.Torture must be used to save innocent lives. Instead we allow millions to die at the hand of a lunatic and terrorist organisation. Torture is viewed as barbaric, immoral and unjust. People believe the practice of torture has no place in modern society.  But the pilot who risked his life to murder others is viewed as a hero. This is because people view his actions as an unavoidable act of violence, in order to protect his country and to help bring a war to an end.  Also, his actions are seen as protective, however his actions are clearly more immoral.  So, how can a murderous bomber pilot who slaughtered innocent women and children be a hero, and a man who has never killed and whose actions saved lives be a villain?

The philosopher, Jonathan Glover once said ‘In modern war, what is most shocking is a poor guide to what is most harmful’. This  is an accurate depiction of how modern war is viewed; bombs which cause mass collateral damage are permissible and torture is an infringement of justice. The bomb is more harmful but accepted where the idea of using torture is more shocking and rejected. But both results in unprecedented human suffering. If one is accepted surely the other should be as well?  Both actions are equally dreadful acts.

The use of torture is a necessary evil to protect lives as it is the most effective method to obtain the relevant information in scenarios similar to the ‘ticking-bomb’ case. Torture is the safest, best and only way to protect the interests of a country and save innocent lives.

Imagine that a known criminal is holding your family hostage, they are tied up with guns pointing at them.  One of the known criminal’s accomplices is sitting in the same room as you and is gloating rather than concealing their guilt. The accomplice will not tell you where your family is and how to help them, so the only way to save your family is to torture the accomplice in front of you. By torturing that person you can obtain the relevant information to save your family. The situation above is a personalised version of the ‘ticking-bomb’ case.

In most cases the ‘ticking-bomb’ case is not enough to persuade people of the justified use of torture. The original ‘ticking-bomb’ case is that there is a bomb in a nearby city. The culprit is in front of you, do you torture him and locate the bomb, saving many lives?. Most people would be unwilling to torture the culprit to get the information on where the bomb is and without this information potentially a lot of people will die.

However, these same people could be willing to drop bombs on Iraq and Afghanistan. This is because the victims that will die or are severely mutilated are ‘name less’.  Hitherto most torture victims are not ‘name less’, this is because torture is up close and personal. But a necessary evil to protect mankind.

If a torture pill was created that subjected the user to both mental and physical punishment that could not be resisted; but to the torturer, the victim appears to be asleep, would this type of torture become more socially acceptable to use?  By using a torture pill no visible signs of pain are seen therefore creating a level of naivety similar to that of a bomber pilot. Whereas both would know that their actions would result in suffering as the victims pain is unknown and they cannot see the damaged caused they can live guilt free lives. Even though innocents were essentially murdered.

During war a bomber pilot returning to base after releasing his bombs upon a civilian target killing hundreds of people including women and children is perceived as a hero. Whereas a torturer who has never killed a person but has tortured people to gain vital information to save soldiers and civilian lives is viewed as immoral. This is because they are viewed with different levels of culpability. The torturer who took actions that went against the Geneva Convention will be viewed as a villain as although it was necessary, people do not agree with the idea of torture and do not condone its use. Torture is viewed as barbaric; immoral and has no place in modern society.  But the pilot who risked his life to murder others is viewed as a hero. This is because people view his actions as necessary in order to protect his country and to help bring a war to an end.  Also, his actions are seen as protective.  So how can a bomber pilot who murdered innocent women and children be a hero and a man who has never killed and whose actions saved lives be a villain?

‘In modern war, what is most shocking is a poor guide to what is most harmful’ (Jonathan Glover). This quote is an accurate depiction of how modern war is viewed, bombs which cause mass collateral damage are ok and torture is wrong. The bomb is more harmful but accepted where the idea of using torture is more shocking and rejected. But both results in human suffering, if one is accepted surly the other should be as well, as both actions are equally bad.

The use of torture is a necessary evil but the only way to protect innocent lives form violent threats. This is because it is the most effective method to obtain the relevant information in scenarios similar to the ‘ticking-bomb’ case. Torturing someone is also equally immoral to bombing another country.

Dear Ms Kerr

I agree with your article ‘Twerking, selfie and unlike? Young people don’t speak like that –I should know’. Slang words are just fashionable trends which are constantly changing and adapting.  An example of this is the word ‘groovy’; a slang word that was used in the 1960s. This word has now fallen out of fashion and no longer used in conversation.

I personally think that there is nothing wrong with slang, but like you I believe that slang has no place in the Oxford on-line Dictionary. I believe this because these words are not an accurate representation of all young people. The majority of the younger generation are not obsessed with their image, reputations and sex, as these slang words now included in the dictionary would suggest. Secondly, these words could fall out of fashion and may then become obsolete. I believe that the Oxford on-line Dictionary should only include slang words which have stood the test of time, and therefore become part of the general idiolect. This would allow obsolete slang words like ‘groovy’ to live only in the memory of the generation who used it, thus not restricting the evolution of the English language.

Additionally, people do not say ‘init’, ‘JK’ or ‘LOL’ in a job interview, as they want to make a good impression to their potential employer.  However if the Oxford on-line Dictionary includes these words before they have been accepted by society, it could make the interviewee seem illiterate. Nevertheless this person could be a valuable asset to the company, but as they cannot express themselves to all audiences they could lose the chance to work for the company and stand out from the crowd.

Additionally many young people only speak slang to their friends and not to figures of authority who they respect and trust. Slang is a form of jargon between youths and their friends when they talk, text or use social media. They are using slang words on these platforms for quickness and so older generations do not know what they are saying; lol!

As you mentioned in your article Shakespeare would be turning in his grave as, although It could also be argued that Shakespeare was the greatest inventor of slang, as he created hundreds of new words like ‘sanctimonious’ and ‘assassination’ for his plays. These words created by Shakespeare are used to further a person’s understanding of the world they live in. At first these words were unfamiliar, causing people to condemn them. But over time these words have become accepted and have earned their place in the English language. It has taken generations of people using these words before they became acceptable.  I believe the same will eventually happen to some slang words but hopefully not any abbreviated ones. But unlike Shakespeare, my generations is not creating imaginative new words to further our understanding of the world, it is just shortening perfectly good words.

Seriously there is really no need to shorten ‘seriously’ to ‘Srsly’. If you are going to revolutionise the English language at least be original and not alter the already eloquent English language.

yours faithfully

Samuel Garner

The hawk perched at the top of a tall oak tree, listening to the gentle breeze. His hooked feet were clutching the branch. The hawk was still, merging into the background. No danger was around but the hawk was always ready to become a blur of motion if anything stirred. The inaction was boring the hawk and he began to dream.

While the hawk dreamed he rehearsed perfect kills and the feast afterwards. The hawk dreamed of past glories, near misses and most of all the thrill of the hunt. The thrill was a drug to the hawk it became all he thought about and what every centimetre of his feathered body craved. The thrill kept him going and sustained his otherwise monotonous life and was the only reason he was prepared to wait.

Without warning there was a slight rustle in the long grass at the bottom of the tall oak, which stirred the hawk from his dreams, it was time to hunt. The air’s buoyancy and the sun’s ray gave the hawk a huge advantage over its unsuspecting prey. It was as if the earth’s faces were made for the hawk to inspect as a sergeant inspecting those under his command. The hawk took off with all the eloquence of a ballet dance and the skill of a gymnast. The hawk’s flight was a marvel to watch as every inch of the hawk’s body was sensing the air currents, reading the signs and slowly preparing for the kill. Silence is the hawk’s best friend as it allows him to sneak up on many an unsuspecting mouse.

Where the sound originated, the silent menace circled, his eyes penetrating the grass like a knife through butter. The hawk was scanning for the mouse that had initiated the chase, adrenalin coursing through the hawk’s veins increasing the thrill.  It took the whole of creation to produce this perfect killer; from his foot to each individual feather. The hawk swiftly snatched up the creature between its talons and flew up. As the hawk flew the mouse began struggling with all of its might against the power of the hawk, trying to survive just that bit longer, clinging to its life. The hawk continued its feat of strength, flying to any place it wants in order to kill the poor creature in its clutches; because the whole world was his.

There was no sophistry in the hawk’s powerful body, tearing off the mouse’s delicate head. Blood was spilling everywhere. The hawk is the allotment of death and his flight was a path directly through the bones of the living, and into the nightmares of infants. His talons alone were enough to strike immense fear into the hearts of mice and men alike.  The hawk is the stuff nightmares are made of and no animal alive can assert that right. Hunting and killing was what the hawk was bred for.

The hawk returned back to the same branch, satisfied with the hunt. He was no longer hungry, sensed no danger, and began to dream again.

The hawk perched at the top of a tall oak tree, listening to the gentle breeze. His hooked feet clutching the branch, the hawk was still, blending into the background. No danger was around but the hawk was always ready to become a blur of motion if anything stirred. The inaction was boring the hawk and he began to dream.

While the hawk dreamed he rehearsed perfect kills and the feast afterwards. The hawk dreamed of past glories, near misses and most of all the thrill of the hunt. The thrill was a drug to the hawk it became all he thought about and what every centimetre of his feathered body craved. The thrill kept him going and sustained his otherwise boring life and was the only reason he was prepared to wait.

Without warning there was a slight rustle in the long grass at the bottom of the tall oak which stirred the hawk from his dreams, it was time to hunt. The air’s buoyancy and the sun’s ray gave the hawk a huge advantage over its unsuspecting prey. It was as if the earth’s faces were made for the hawk to inspect like a sergeant inspecting those under his command. The hawk took off with all the eloquence of a ballet dance and the skill of a gymnast. The hawk’s flight was a marvel to watch as every inch of the hawk’s body was sensing the air currents, reading the signs and slowly preparing for the kill. Silence is the hawk’s best friend as it allows him to sneak up on many unsuspecting mouse.

Where the sound originated, the silent menace circled, his eyes penetrating the grass. The hawk was scanning for the mouse that had initiated the chase, adrenalin pumping through the hawk’s veins increasing the thrill.  It took the whole of creation to produce this perfect killer, from his foot to each individual feather. The hawk swiftly snatched up the creature between its talons and flew up. As the hawk flew the mouse began struggling with all of its might against the power of the hawk, trying to survive just that bit longer, clinging to its life. The hawk continued its feat of strength, flying to any place it wants in order to kill the poor creature in its clutches, because the whole world was his.

There was no sophistry in the hawk’s powerful body, tearing off the mouse’s delicate head, blood spilling everywhere. The hawk is the allotment of death and his flight was a path directly through the bones of the living, and into the nightmares of infants. His talons alone were enough to strike immense fear into the hearts of mice and men alike.  The hawk is the stuff nightmares are made of and no animal alive can assert that right. Hunting and killing was what the hawk was breed for.

The hawk returned back to the same branch, satisfied with the hunt. He was no longer hungry, sensed no danger, and began to dream again.

Dear Ms Kerr

I agree with your article ‘Twerking, selfie and unlike? Young people don’t speak like that –I should know’. Slang words are just fashionable trends which are constantly changing and adapting.  An example of this is the word ‘groovy’ a slang word that was used in the 1960s. This word has now fallen out of fashion and no longer used in conversation.

I personally think that there is nothing wrong with slang, but like you I believe that slang has no place in the Oxford Dictionary. I believe this because firstly, it is not an accurate representation of all young people. Most of the younger generation is not obsessed with their image, reputation and sex, like these slang words now included in the dictionary would suggest. Secondly, these words could fall out of fashion and would then become obsolete. I believe that the Oxford Dictionary should only include slang words which have stood the test of time, and therefore becoming part of the general idiolect. This would allow obsolete slang words like ‘groovy’ to live only in the memory of the generation who used it, thus not restricting the evolution of the English language.

Also, people do not say ‘init’, ‘JK’ or ‘LOL’ in a job interview, as they want to make a good impression to their potential employer.  However if the Oxford Dictionary includes these words before they have been accepted by society, it could make the interviewee seem illiterate. Nevertheless this person could be a valuable asset to the company, but as they cannot express themselves to all audiences they could lose the chance to work for the company and stand out from the crowd.

Additionally many young people only speak slang to their friends and not to figures of authority who they respect and trust. Slang is a form of jargon between youths and their friends when they talk, text or use social media. They are using slang words on these platforms for quickness and so older generations do not know what they are saying, lol!

It could also be argued that Shakespeare was the greatest inventor of slang as he created hundreds of new words like ‘sanctimonious’ and ‘assassination’ for his plays. At first these words were unfamiliar, causing people to condemn them. But over time these words have become accepted and have earned their place in the English language. It has taken generations of people using these words before they became acceptable.  I believe the same will eventually happen to some slang words but hopefully not any abbreviated ones. But unlike Shakespeare, my generations is not creating imaginative new words to further our understanding of the world, it is just shortening perfectly good words.

Seriously there is really no need to shorten ‘seriously’ to ‘Srsly’, if you are going to revolutionise the English language at least be original and not alter the already eloquent English language.

Imagine that a known criminal is holding your family hostage, they are tied up with guns pointing at them.  One of the known criminal’s accomplices is sitting in the same room as you and is gloating rather than concealing their guilt. The accomplice will not tell you where your family is and how to help them, so the only way to save your family is to torture the accomplice in front of you. By torturing that person you can obtain the relevant information to save your family. The situation above is a personalised version of the ‘ticking-bomb’ case.

In most cases the ‘ticking-bomb’ case is not enough to persuade people of the justified use of torture. The original ‘ticking-bomb’ case is that there is a bomb in a nearby city and the culprit is in front of you, do you torture him and locate the bomb and saving many lives? Most people would be unwilling to torture the culprit to get the information on where the bomb is and without this information potentially a lot of people will die.

However, these same people could be willing to drop bombs on Iraq and Afghanistan. This is because the victims that will die or are severely mutilated are ‘name less’.  Hitherto most torture victims are not ‘name less’, this is because torture is up close and personal.

If a torture pill was created that subjected the user to both mental and physical punishment that could not be resisted,  but to the torturer, the victim appears to be asleep, would this type of torture become more socially acceptable to use?  By using a torture pill no visible signs of pain are seen therefore creating a level of naivety similar to that of a bomber pilot. Whereas both would know that their actions would result in suffering as the victims pain is unknown and they cannot see the damaged caused they can live guilt free lives.

During war a bomber pilot returning to base after releasing his bombs upon a civilian target killing hundreds of people including women and children is viewed as a hero. Whereas a torturer who has never killed a person but has tortured people to gain vital information to save soldiers and civilian lives is viewed as immoral. This is because they are viewed with different levels of culpability. The torturer who took actions that went against the Geneva Convention will be viewed as a villain as although it was necessary, people do not agree with the idea of torture and do not condone its use. Torture is viewed as barbaric, immoral and has no place in modern society.  But the pilot who risked his life to kill others is viewed as a hero as people view his actions as necessary in order to protect his country and to help bring a war to an end.  Also, his actions are seen as protective.  So how can a bomber pilot who murdered innocent women and children be a hero and a man who has never killed and whose actions saved lives be a villain?

‘In modern war, what is most shocking is a poor guide to what is most harmful’ (Jonathan Glover ). This quote is an accurate depiction of how modern war is viewed, bombs which cause mass collateral damage are ok and torture is wrong. The bomb is more harmful but accepted where the idea of using torture is more shocking and rejected. But both results in human suffering, if one is accepted surly the other should be as well, as both actions are equally bad.

The use of torture is a necessary evil to protect lives as it is the most effective method to obtain the relevant information in scenarios similar to the ‘ticking-bomb’ case. It is also equally immoral to bombing.