4. Who to save first? This is a tough moral question to have to think about, but in my opinion, using my intuition, I would choose to save my niece first. At this point it doesn’t matter that the girls went against my wishes of having them wait until I could supervise them. I think this is the right decision to make since I know for a fact that my niece is not as strong in the water as my daughter. This dilemma is one that brings forth the idea of moral obligations. I feel that I do have a moral obligation to save both of the children, but this is a time for the use of my better judgment. This is really a situation where I feel that my instincts of saving someone who is more hopeless before someone who has a fighting chance, or could just hold on for the few minutes longer, is stronger than saving my daughter first simply because she is my daughter. This is not the position one would take if they feel their moral obligation should only be towards someone in their immediate family.
It seems only natural, as a mother, to want to save my daughter first because she is my child, but there is something inside of me that would automatically have me rush to the person who needs the most help in the situation. Many would question my response but it can be morally justified. This response can be justified through a utilitarian standpoint. Utilitarianism is a form consequentialist ethics that revolves the outcomes being the greatest they can be for those involved, also for the outcome to be as positive as possible. A utilitarian would say that saving my daughter first would not be in the best interest of my niece because she needs the most help, and will result in the most negative effect if not helped first.
My response, though b...
... middle of paper ...
...to get any word out of him. In a situation like this, I feel like I could use the argument of war as a parallel. If there were nuclear threats I believe that war is a necessity, and these ideas go hand-in-hand. It would be wrong to say that it is always right to use torture, and if it were the rule, there would definitely cases of abuse to the rule, possibly even abuses of how often or when to use torture.
Torture is something that, when used properly, can help the situation at hand. This is a very touchy subject because who’s to say that the torture will even work. It would be hard for whoever is in charge of this matter, who has a duty to keep civilians safe from this potential threat, to sit back and do nothing in a situation like this. Its one thing to have to torture someone but to have to torture someone else because torturing him or her wasn’t enough.
Who wouldn’t have agreed? Yes, torture is cruel but it is less cruel than the substitute in many positions. Killing Hitler wouldn’t have revived his millions of victims nor would it have ended war. But torture in this predicament is planned to bring no one back but to keep faultless people from being sent off. Of course mass murdering is far more barbaric than torture. The most influential argument against using torture as a penalty or to get an acknowledgment is that such practices ignore the rights of the particulars. Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture” discusses both sides of being with and being against torture. This essay gets readers thinking a lot about the scenarios Levin mentioned that torture is justified. Though using pathos, he doesn’t achieve the argument as well as he should because of the absence of good judgment and reasoning. In addition to emotional appeal, the author tries to make you think twice about your take on
Rather, when torture is acceptable, and on which term should be it performed? The argument lest authorization torture his an advisor Sharde presumption that torture is currently happening and will be happening in the future hence the the. Plan of torture and. Dershowitz believes in a formal, visible, accountable, and controlled system of inflicting that would ideally leave torture as a last resort. The system would begin by granting the suspect immunity. Then suspect the be would compelled to testify; if the suspect were to refuse to exchange information, the next step would be acknowledging the possibility of torture while continuing to give the option of immunity. In a case of a suspect refusing to exchange information, even with immunity, a judicial warrant must be granted to proceed with purposely elicited
In his essay “The Case for Torture,” printed in The Norton Reader 13th Edition, Michael Levin argues that torture is justified and necessary under extreme circumstance. He believes that if a person accepts torture to be justified under extreme cases, then the person automatically accepts torture. Levin presents weak argument and he mostly relies on hypothetical scenarios. There is not concrete evidence that torture solves problems and stop crime but rather the contrary. Under international law, torture is illegal and all the United Nation members have to abide by those rules. The use of torture does not keep people safe, but rather the opposite. Torture has a profound effect on democracy. As the use of torture becomes normal in society, the right of the citizen will suffer greatly.
"Ethical utilitarianism can most generally be described as the principle that states that the rightness or wrongness of action is determined by the goodness and badness of their consequences." (Utilitarianism EOP 9: 603.) Following this guide line the morally right decision to make is to rescue the group with five ...
It can be concluded that rule utilitarianism means that an act is moral permissible if such an act conforms to a moral rule that maximises utility. Rule utilitarianism dictates that one should choose saving the life of the innocent as there is a moral rule that urges us to protect the interests of children and such a moral rule leads to utility. Although, this theory is subject to numerous of criticisms, it is still quite appealing to solving the Trolley Car Problem and any other moral-ethical
The issue of torture is nothing new. It was done in the past and it’s done now in the 21st century. Without saying one side is right and the other side is wrong, let us discuss the part that we agree on and find common ground. We as Americans want to protect Americans from harms. So how do we prevent that from happening without torturing? It is impossible to get answer without some sort of questioning and intimidation techniques, since we know captured prisoners during war are not easily going to give up information. We know the enemy we face doesn’t follow the Geneva Convention or any law that pertains to war, so does that mean we shouldn’t also follow the Geneva Convention also, which prohibits torture? Of course not, because we want to be example for the world. Republicans argue that we have to do whatever is necessary to keep Americans safe, and Democrats argue it goes against our values and makes us look bad. We as Americans, as leader of the free world we
Applebaum believes that torture should not be used as a means of gaining information from suspects. Applebaum's opinion is supported through details that the practice has not been proven optimally successful. After debating the topic, I have deliberated on agreeing with Applebaum's stance towards the torture policy. I personally agree with the thought to discontinue the practice of torture as a means of acquiring intel. I find it unacceptable that under the Bush Administration, the President decided prisoners to be considered exceptions to the Geneva Convention. As far as moral and ethical consideration, I do not believe that it is anyone's right to harm anyone else, especially if the tactic is not proven successful. After concluding an interview with Academic, Darius Rejali, Applebaum inserted that he had “recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway.” There are alternative...
Torture can prevent the attacks resulting in terror or can go and prove no one, no one can infringe the right of Americans in the result of another attack, and therefore torture is justifiable. The similarities between ISIS and Al Qaeda is scary and torture needs to be in the back pocket of all officials to prevent similar disasters. The clock stopped ticking on 9-11, and anyone on the street can tell oneself where they were the minute they heard. The use of torture could save the lives of thousands, send the message that America is in charge, and can become more commonly accepted in the eyes of disaster. A ticking bomb could be going off at any time, it could destroy a spouse, a son, a daughter, a friend, a neighbor, or maybe the threat is to oneself, torture could get the information to destroy the bomb before it destroys one’s life. Torture is justifiable.
James Rachels expresses his thoughts on what a satisfactory moral theory would be like. Rachels says a “satisfactory theory would be realistic about where human beings fit in the grand scheme of things” (Rachels, 173). Even though there is an existing theory on how humans came into this world there is not enough evidence to prove the theory to be correct. In addition to his belief of knowing how our existence came into play, he also has a view on the way we treat people and the consequences of our actions. My idea of a satisfactory moral theory would be treating people the way we wish to be treated, thinking of what results from our doings, as well as living according to the best plan.
A young women who just recently married at the age of 24 is six months along in her pregnancy. By her eighth month, she has came across complications. Within one week, they continue to get progressively worse. She is eventually rushed to the hospital. There her symptoms are studied by medical professionals. She soon is told that her complications are so severe that they might cost her her life. She is now faced with a choice. A medical dilemma of saving her life with the use of an abortion, or the moral dilemma of saving her childs life. What is right?
Now, let’s say you do choose to torture this man, not only are the people directly in this situation going to be affected, but also the rest of the nation. We need to ask ourselves, what is going to be the true outcome? This includes thinking about how the enemy is going to react and how the nation is going to react. Torturing this man shames our nation as a whole, scars our repu...
would reject even the notion of deliberating about the act of murder in such a
Act-consequentialism is a moral theory that maintains what is right is whatever brings about the best consequences impartially considering. The main and most renowned form of act-consequentialism is act utilitarianism which advocates agents choosing the moral path that creates the greatest good for the greatest number, this being the most widely known form of act-consequentialism is the moral theory that I shall be concentrating on though out my discussion. Impartiality is the notion that everybody should count for one and nobody more than one, which is often considered to be a “double-edged sword” (Jollimore, 2017) meaning there is debate as to whether impartiality is a strength or weakness of the theory. Throughout my essay I attempt to point out an important misunderstanding made by theories that uphold impartiality as a weakness of act-consequentialism and how this could lead to the view that impartiality is in fact a strength of both act utilitarianism and act consequentialism.
From a moral standpoint, torture is wrong and unacceptable. Many religious people are against this act of violence because they see it as a violation of the dignity of a human being. Humans have the right to not have intentional harm upon themselves from others. The ban on torture furthermore supports this certain right. Not only does torture violate people’s rights, but they also violate the demands of justice. In the past, many of our nation’s people have been tortured and we have had a problem with it; but when it’s not you the one that is being tortured, it seems to be fine. Have you heard of the golden rule, “Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation? (7)” This applies very well to this problem.
The theories and ideals shared among consequentialists are by no means to be scrapped; philosophical theories are theories, not prescriptions. While they do all make an attempt to describe a solution to various moral conundrums, one can not forget that validity is shared among theories. Holes may seem larger in certain standards and ideals, but these holes are never refutable and should be used to create a larger discourse between philosophical theories. Consequentialism and all it’s sub-groups (direct, universal, hedonism, aggregative, evaluative, maximizing, etc.) are based around two dominant principles: For an act to be in the right or wrong one must look solely to the results of the act, and subsequently second, the more net-good produced