In The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius argues that those who are wicked are miserable and deserve punishment. He argues that physical punishment is just, as it leads those who sin to true happiness by re-aligning them onto God’s path. However, these arguments are not completely valid due to ethical guidelines and the idea that use of force can always produce false testimonies. With this and Boethius’s perspective in mind, I will choose a course of action which does not use physical force and instead try to gain a confession through other means. In The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius claims that “sin never goes unpunished or virtue unrewarded, and that what happens to the good is always happy and that what happens to the bad is always …show more content…
In punishing those who have committed sin, one is keeping the wicked weak and giving them what they deserve. Furthermore, punishment for those who have committed wicked acts helps the society since those who see these punishments being carried out would be deterred from committing wicked acts in order to not experience these consequences (Boethius 98). Overall, according to Boethius, the act of punishment in general is seen as a way to keep a lawful society and is an act from “the Creator Himself” (Boethius 85). Additionally, in Book IV, Boethius states that “the wicked are happier if they suffer punishment than if they are unrestrained by any retribution” (Boethius 97). The logic here, as Boethius explains, is that based on the assumption that wickedness can be corrected by punishment, those who are wicked and get punished get justice. This justice puts them on the path to goodness and true happiness. This path of good and true happiness puts them back on the path of God and God’s grace. This is because, as proven in Book III, true happiness is …show more content…
To torture another human being is not an act of goodness and so this would only put me, as the interrogator, in a position where I am straying off my own path of divinity. To torture someone for simply making an error and straying off the path puts me in the position of acting as God. This is not possible as Boethius also establishes that humans are lesser than God. Additionally, the use of torture can lead to false confessions due to the fact that a person will say anything in order to prevent bodily harm.In the future, it is against the law for police officers to subject those in their custody to physical torture due to the high rate of false confessions. When a false confession is produced, a person who is innocent is one who is suffering rather than the real wicked person. These acts of torture then stray both the perpetrator and the victim off the path of God, rather than onto a path of righteousness. Those who are wicked and get punished may not always change their habits and so they are not benefitting from this sense of moral betterment since they do not take accountability and change their
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
When people are only given the options of confess or face condemnation, nothing good can result from that
Justice for Pentheus He is stripped of his authority. He isn’t in his right mind. He watches his palace go up in flames.
I was given the task to make a decision concerning the confession of Alexandros of Nicomedia regarding his Monophysite beliefs. After carefully studying Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, and closely analyzing his arguments, I was able to come to a conclusion. Boethius would argue that the correct thing to do is punish Alexandros to push him to reform himself rather than just senseless torture, given that wicked men technically do not exist, wicked men are already punishing themselves and wicked man can reform themselves by suing the right punishment.
“You must pay for everything in this world one way and another. There is nothing free except the Grace of God. You can’t earn that or deserve it” (Portis 40.) Everything you do, good or bad, carries some sort of judgment from the Lord. You might slip through the cracks from this world judgments and law, but you will be judged according to your doings, in this world by God. You can’t earn nor deserve the Grace of the Lord, because it was already given to us in the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. “Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification” (Romans 4:25.) This gave us Grace to be forgiven after our sin if we repent from further sinning’s. This means you can’t go and commit a crime of revenge, knowing God’s words
...d appear to be unrestrained and unpunished because their wickedness and the lack of true happiness that is associated with it is their punishment (Consolation of Philosophy 94). To both Augustine and Boethius, God is completely good and sovereign. However, He allows men free will and the punishment or rewards that come with these free decisions.
First, the ticking-bomb scenarios are cases in which torturing the terrorist will save many innocent lives at the cost of non-lethal suffering to one individual. Torturing the terrorist would thus produce the most happiness/well-being. This approach has great strengths but also creates complex questions: is torture still the lesser evil if it only saves one person? Is it morally right to torture a person’s children to extract a confession? Is it morally right to torture ninety-nine people in an attempt to save one-hundred others? In theory this type of thinking can justify extreme inhumanity as long as it is calculated as the lesser evil. Secondly, one ought to do what produces the most happiness/well-being. Despite the wider case against torture, a person confronted with the immediate choices in the ‘ticking bomb’ case is unlikely to take these issues into account; ‘interrogators will still use coercion because in some cases they will deem it worth the consequence. Few people would be unable to see a moral basis for torture if it was carried out in a reasonably clear ‘ticking bomb’ case and if the intention of the torturer was to ‘do the right thing.’ The difficulties of the immediate choice between carrying out torture and allowing deaths make it difficult to morally condemn the unfortunate person charged with deciding. Therefore, one ought to torture terrorists in such scenarios. The only pragmatic concern would be that torture does not
In The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius uses good vs. evil argument in an objective, metaphysical view, on an abstract level. Good being the all-powerful God and evil being nothing. Parallel to that view, there is good vs. bad, which is presented from a human viewpoint. While the good has similar meani...
The Consolation of Philosophy is written by Boethius while in prison awaiting for his execution. It starts out with Boethius talking to lady philosophy and she starts to tell him about the philosophical view on Christianity. She begins by explaining that the vagaries of Fortune visit everyone and she has came there to "cure" him of all his suffering and sickness he is feeling through this troubling time. Boethius's view is more of a philosophical point of view meaning that he uses reasoning and experience to base his view of God. He doesn’t understand why bad things happen to good people and why good things happen to bad people. Boethius had a hard time understanding that God would allow good people to have a troubling life. Boethius has a
In the Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius addresses many solutions to the never-ending problem of evil. In Book IV Boethius offers a solution to the problem based on the distinction between “Fate” and “Providence.” Boethius defines both of these terms and explains his own version of the problem and how to solve the problem using the differences between “Fate” and “Providence.” However one may argue against Boethius’s solution and offer a solution themselves. And if this may occur Boethius or somebody who agrees with him would make a counter argument against the proposed solution.
In order to assess the morality of torture, one needs to define it. According to the Tokyo Declaration of 1975 torture is “the deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting alone or on the orders of any authority, to force another person to yield information, to make a confession or for any other reason.” This definition’s generality severely limits harmless interrogations by police. The United Nations changed the definition to include severe physical suffering, deliberate intentions, and also added that the action cannot be part of a lawful sanction. The US later revised the definition “to include only the most extreme pain” in 200...
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 use of torture has always been a hot topic of moral and ethical discussion. Typically, the discussion is not about whether or not torture is good, but rather if there is ever a morally acceptable situation in which torture should be allowed to occur. Does a criminal’s deeds strip him of basic human rights and make it morally okay for him to be physically and mentally abused? Do certain situations such as war make torture acceptable? It is generally agreed upon that torture is a terrible violation of a person and their rights; the common thread among moral questions such as these is if there are any times when torture could be considered morally acceptable. In order to analyze this moral dilemma, an ethical system is commonly used as a
In the Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius confronts his unjust imprisonment with reason to illustrate how virtue always overcomes evil and how God as the supreme good can neither cause nor condone wickedness.
“Now every wicked man is in a state of ignorance as to what he ought to do and what he should refrain from doing, and it is due to this kind of error that men become unjust and, in general, immoral. […] Ignorance in moral choice does not make an act involuntary—it makes it wicked.” As a result, one may conclude that sin is determined through actions, regardless of intention or moral knowledge. This would lead to the assumption that, in order to achieve happiness and avoid sin, one simply has to be aware of their actions and do good