Can knowingly harming another person ever be justified? Christians are taught that mistreating another human being, no matter what the reason might be, is immoral. If a child were to be kidnapped, and the possible kidnapper was found by authorities, some might argue that torture is a reasonable way to get information about the child’s whereabouts. In this case, torture is defined as purposely causing severe mental or physical pain to another person to obtain information or as punishment for an action (“Definition of Torture”). Although it may seem like an effective way to get the child back alive, it is an unethical way to achieve the goal of saving someone. From a Christian ethical standpoint, torture can never be justified because the fundamental …show more content…
Christians, specifically Catholics, believe in a consistent ethic of life which is, "...an ethical framework, in which the equal value of human life and dignity is seen as the foundation [upon which] all ethical questions of life and death can be weighed" (Murphy). Therefore, human lives cannot be valued over other human lives. By torturing a human, you are putting that life below the life of the kidnapped child. Although a child may be in danger, that does not excuse hurting another person. In the Bible, it is stated that humans are created in the image of God by God: "God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female, he created them" (New American Bible Revised Edition Bible, Genesis. 1: 27). So, by harming a human being, you are, in turn, harming God himself. Consequently, because humans are created in God’s image, we all have human dignity. This dignity is inherent to all persons and cannot and should not be taken away from anyone. Both the dignity of the child who was kidnapped as the possible kidnapper are being violated. According to article five of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (United Nations). All members of humanity should be treated with kindness and justice not only because of our inherent human dignity, but also because it is how we would all like to be
there. Therefore, Torture is illegitimate. Torturing is however, is an illegal act only when the
Capital punishment and torture are often looked down on in today’s societies because they are viewed as cruel and unconstitutional, but perhaps they would help in more ways then we would like to admit. They can be beneficial in many ways such as encouragement to be truthful, encouragement to live by the laws, and as a source of punishment. Capital punishment and torture are thought to be too painful, and the person doing the punishment is also committing a crime.
Torture, as defined by the Oxford dictionary is the action of forcing a person to expose something through pain and suffering (“Definition of Torture in English”, 1). It has been a very effective means of extracting information. The practice of torture was originally used on slaves to increase productivity. It later proved to be an efficient approach to force individuals to disclose information. Many civilizations have used this practice throughout history, each with their own unique way. The Greeks used a technique known as the brazen bull. This approach consisted of a victim to be placed in an iron bull and steamed alive (Blinderman, 1). A very gruesome and agonizing approach but widely accepted at the time because it delivered results. Torture, though a controversial topic today, should be acceptable, because firstly, it can lead to the gathering crucial intelligence, secondly, it is a quick approach to gain said information, and finally, it is can be sanctioned in an ethical aspect.
Ever since the attack on the world trade center, Americans have become more aware of their surroundings and possible scenarios that could take place anytime and anywhere. After 9/11 the U.S. military began more sophisticated interrogations on individuals that could possibly lead to terrorism outbreaks by using the most effective way which is torture to ensure that the safety and lives of Americans is not threatened. Through the use of torture by our military, the U.S. has been able to interfere the use of terrorism, obtain important information and save numbers of U.S. citizens lives.
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...
Consider the following situation: You are an army officer who has just captured an enemy soldier who knows where a secret time bomb has been planted. Unless defused, the bomb will explode, killing thousands of people. Would it be morally permissible to torture them to get him to reveal the bomb’s location? Discuss this problem in light of both Utilitarian and Kantian moral theories and present arguments from both moral perspectives for why torture is morally wrong.
On the opposite side, there are people very much in favor of the use of torture. To them, torture is a “morally defensible” interrogation method (8). The most widely used reason for torture is when many lives are in imminent danger. This means that any forms of causing harm are acceptable. This may seem reasonable, as you sacrifice one life to save way more, but it’s demoralizing. The arguments that justify torture usually are way too extreme to happen in the real world. The golden rule also plays a big rol...
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
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
We should treat everyone equally even if they don’t believe in the same things as us. All of the tragedies we have had motivate us to fix our mistakes. If we fix our mistakes our humanity could be so much better. Also if we remember what happened in the past we will know how to handle anything bad that happens better. Hopefully by making our humanity better and learning from our mistakes we will prevent tragedies.
It might even be said that a person who allows rape and murder to occur without intervention does not deserve to live. Yet, by believing in an omnipotent being, one is forced to submit to a God who allows these act of cruelty. In the book Foreign Bodies by Hwee Hwee Tan, the author presents a diverse set of characters who deal with this theodicy through their own theological positions. By the end of the novel, Mei
God then forbids the taking of innocent life [viz. a life not guilty of a capital crime, according to the law of God]. This is evident from verses such as Ex. 23:7, which says this: "Keep yourself far from a false matter; DO NOT KILL THE INNOCENT and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked
Schneider asks “who is supposed to raise and love this child once he is born?” (Schneider 11). None can visualize the terrible agony caused by rape, but how much worse would a burden of murder weigh? God loves that baby so much he sent his son Jesus to die for it. No amount or degree of mental pain justifies a murder of what God loves.
I don’t think the Bible condones suicide, but it sounds to me like God doesn’t appreciate folks messing over the lives of little kids. I should probably mix in widows, elderly, disabled, and animals too. The idea that it is suggested that a person is better of tying a 1500kg grinding stone around their necks, then to disabuse the innocent mind of a child or weaker vessel, tells us all we need to know about how God feels about this form of abuse. Stories like the one(s) uncovered by the Boston Globe team of journalists in Spotlight opens us up to all kinds of reactions and judgments about who the real enemies are.