Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Is torture ever justified
Virtue ethics vs utilitarian ethics essay
Advantages of torture
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Is torture ever justified
Introduction
The topic that covers this essay:: is it morally permissible to torture an innocent child to stop a nuclear threat. I shall defend by stating that it is morally permissible to torture an innocent child by arguing, first, that by torturing a child one can save millions of lives, and secondly that if we torture the child we will be just harming him, not killing him. First I will depict the three approaches to morality presented in this course (Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics and Kant’s). Then I’ll present my own stand and try to support my reasoning with the three moral approaches if possible. Then I’ll continue with a counter argument followed by a conclusion.
Thesis Statement
I shall defend by stating that it is morally permissible
…show more content…
Arguments
I chose to torture the child, because I believe that it’s better to torture one child and save millions of lives. Instead of not torturing one child and the result being the death of millions.
My second arguments is that we’re just only torturing the child, not torturing the child to death. I believe it’s the necessary consequence to save many lives. Mostly because the biggest concern the child would have to deal with is PTSD or some sort of trauma. Instead of resulting in millions of deaths, it’s better for one child to endure trauma instead of millions dying and more in life-long pain.
The best moral theory that supports my arguments is Utilitarianism. To choose the greater good based on everyone. In this situation the best decision would be is to torture the child to stop the terrorist. Because, the greater good is to save the millions of lives that are at risk due to the nuclear bomb.
Counter-
…show more content…
In his second imperative he stated that we have to “always treat rational beings as an end and never as a means only” (Vaughn, p.114). Of course they’re true, in this situation we would be using the child as means to an end. Since we’re torturing him to locate the terrorist. However I can also argue that this is where Kant’s theory is too absolute. In this situation would you save millions of lives by torturing one child or be the reason why millions and many more had to die because you couldn’t torture one
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
of torture as necessary and important in order to safeguard the lives of the many innocents
The ‘Trolley Car Problem’ has sparked heated debates amongst numerous philosophical and jurisprudential minds for centuries. The ‘Trolley Car’ debate challenges one’s pre-conceived conceptions about morals, ethics and the intertwined relationship between law and morality. Many jurisprudential thinkers have thoroughly engaged with this debate and have consequentially put forward various ideologies in an attempt to answer the aforementioned problem. The purpose of this paper is to substantiate why the act of saving the young, innocent girl and resultantly killing the five prisoners is morally permissible. In justifying this choice, this paper will, first, broadly delve into the doctrine of utilitarianism, and more specifically focus on a branch
In this paper, I will argue that Nietzsche’s view on punishment morally is skewed simply because I believe that a healthy moral individual would not be at rest while another human is being tortured. However, to a certain extent and in some specific situations, many would disagree with me. As for Foucault’s speculation on morality I will agree to certain extent as well.
A consequentialist response to Alyosha's refusal to consent to trade the suffering and death of one innocent in exchange for universal harmony is that, in the present inharmonious order, many innocent children will die horribly, not just one. Alyosha's tender conscience will cost thousands of innocent children their lives. And so the debate continues.
In the opinion of this author, his argument is fair and includes the following strengths: that although torture is prohibited by a number of world declarations, it is so fundamental to international order that it does not need to be embodied in written credos; that simply masking “torture” as other words, does not render it legally justifiable and that by claiming necessity of the lesser of two evils, that torture does not necessarily lead to a betterment in the world; rather a deterioration. Possible pitfalls of his argument include a ignorance of the realist point of view by understanding the political and social needs of the nation at the time the memo was drafted as well as ...
Until there is a credible way to determine whether or not torture is in fact effective, I pass judgment that the practice should be discontinued. The question as to if the torture policy is a human rights violation or if it holds crucial necessity, is not answered in the essay. Applebaum explores the reality that torture possesses negative implications on the inflictor. After presented with the compelling stance and evidence, Applebaum raises the interesting question as to why so much of society believes that torture is successful. I agree that the torture policy is wrong, a point emphasized by Applebaum, contrary to the popular attitude surrounding the topic.
“A Case For Torture” is an essay written by Michael Levin in which he tries to make a compelling case for the use of torture as a punishment during specific situations in the United States. One of the ways Levin tries to logically prove his argument is by citing different real life circumstances; most are hypothetical situations. His use of theoretical instances is meant to help direct the reader to understand the applications of Levin’s policy on torture. But unfortunately, the examples Levin cites are too weak for his argument. These examples include a potential terrorist attack on Manhattan and a hospital robbery. Levin’s position also lacks strength due to its inapplicability to the current world.
As Shunzo Majima describes it: “According to Kantian deontology, torture cannot be morally justified if an individual’s humanity and dignity are denied through torture and the torture victim is used merely as a means for achieving the purpose of torture” (Majima, 2012, p. 138). Because of the way torture gravely violates a person’s autonomy and treats them only as a means of getting information or for some other end, it is considered inherently wrong in the eyes of deontology. People who are tortured are no longer seen as human or respected as one; instead, they are seen only as tools that can be manipulated and used in order to achieve a certain result. This, to deontology, is morally
The mother-son case illustrates that there are more factors in play than just the two that Thomson presents in her thesis. Thomson’s conditions by themselves cannot explain every situation. The relationship between the people involved can also affect whether a decision is morally permissible or not. If that relationship entails that one person is emotionally bound and ethically responsible for the security and well-being of the other, the first cannot knowingly contribute to the death of the second. Thomson’s thesis must be modified to include this condition as well.
These week readings, especially the child abuse and Reporting one brought back the tortures and trauma of my elementary school years. The beatings that were unleashed to us by our teachers, and especially one head teacher still disturb me. He would tell you to bent and touch your toe and then he whips your bat as if you had no feeling. I just realized how traumatizing that was that over thirty years down the line, I could still feel remember. I remember some of the students cutting their mattresses and sawing it inside their pants to minimize the pain. Elementary school for us was like concentration camps. This was not for disciplinary motive but criminal. Looking at it now in the light of Gonzales case, I realize this was purely torture.
Torture is the process of inflicting pain upon other people in order to force them to say something against their own will. The word “torture” comes from the Latin word “torquere,” which means to twist. Torture can not only be psychologically but mentally painful. Before the Enlightenment, it was perfectly legal to torture individuals but nowadays, it is illegal to torture anyone under any circumstances. In this essay, I will demonstrate why torture should never acceptable, not matter the condition.
Beaten, broken, burned, bruised, tortured. Torture is defined as a “deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical and mental suffering by one or more persons acting alone or on the orders of an authority to force another person to yield information, make a confession, etc” (Torture). Throughout history, torture has been used for extreme punishment or unreasonably hateful oppression but more recently torture has been used to force the weaker willed into talking. Torture is an extraneous way to get any information or a needed confession from a suspect and it has very terrible effects on those who do the torturing and those who have suffered/are suffering through tortured. Even though some people believe that using “enhanced interrogation”, or torture, techniques to get some potentially critical information and/or confessions, the negative effects on both the tortured and torturer are far too great to risk. Having to argue over destroying, harming, and beating a person is completely ridiculous though it has been around for a long time.
To understand how to prevent child sexual abuse, one must begin by understanding what child sex abuse is. When a perpetrator intentionally harms a child physically, psychologically, sexually, or by acts of neglect, this crime is known as child abuse. Child sex abuse consists of any sexual activity that includes a minor. A child cannot consent to any form of sexual activity. More importantly, when a perpetrator engages with a child this way, they are committing a crime that can have lasting effects on the victim for years. Moreover, child sexual abuse does not need to include physical contact between a perpetrator and child, some forms include but not limited to; fondling, intercourse, sex trafficking, exposing oneself to a minor, masturbation
The abduction of children for various purposes; ransom and extortion, work, sex, power, custody, has historically been a feature of many societies. (Encyclopedia). There are two types of child abduction: parental child abduction and abduction by a stranger. It is near impossible to conceal a kidnapped child in the world today. 1 child goes missing every 40 seconds -354,000 abductions occur within the family each year -over ½ of the abductors are men -49% of abductors have criminal records -4,600 stranger abductions occur each year -sexual assault is most common as a motive -75% of all abductions involve a weapon of some sort. After everything that happens to all parties involved there can be short