Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Discussing utilitarianism
Kantian ethical theory explained
The theory of utilitarianism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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. At first glance, Utilitarian moral theories may seem to support the idea of torturing this innocent man. If we look at this situation we see that there is a dilemma of hurting one man, or having to bear the death of many. We may say that since the basis of Utilitarianism is to do what is best for the greater good, then there is no question that we would torture this one man so that we may save thousands. Take a step back and look at this situation from another angle. What truly is the greater good here? Let us focus on the idea that “if punishing John will do no good, then John should go free” (Pojman, 2002, p.109). What is the chance that a captured soldier is going to give away the secret location of the bomb? It is highly likely he has been trained not to speak under any circumstances. If he does not speak then you have just diminished utility for every single person involved. 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... ... middle of paper ... ...e meaningless in how the company is viewed on the outside. It is the entirety of the company’s progress, and their actions over that period of time of progress that defines the business as a whole. Works Cited Ciulla, J. B., Martin, C. W., & Solomon, R. C. (2007). Is "The Social Responsibility of Business... to Increase Its Profits"? Social Responsibility and Stakeholder Theory. Honest work: a business ethics reader (pp. 217-253). New York: Oxford University Press. Hursthouse, R. (2003, July 18). Virtue Ethics. Stanford University. Retrieved March 6, 2014, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/ethics-virtue O'Neill, O. (1986). A Simplified Account of Kantian Ethics. Matters of life and death (pp. 44-50). n.a.: McGraw-Hill. Pojman, L. (2002). 6: Utilitarianism. Ethics: discovering right and wrong (pp. 104-113). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
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
On Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com. ———. "
Cahn, Steven M. and Peter Markie, Ethics: History, Theory and Contemporary Issues. 4th Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Klagge, JC 1989, Virtue: Aristotle or Kant? Virginia Tech Department of Philosophy, Web version accessed 14 May 2014.
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.
The idea of this statement is to cause the reader to challenge the constitutionality of disregarding the civil rights of one person to protect the lives of millions. With such an extreme example, the line between right and wrong can easily be blurred to the average citizen. Is the choice of when to torture someone or not so easy? Yes, Lucas Stanley says, “If I knew my friends were in trouble, and some guy knew where or how to help them, damn straight, I would do everything in my power to help them.” This is the exact answer Levin was expecting from his article....
If we torture just one prisoner for information on the next terrorist attack, then we could save thousands of lives. One life vs a thousand lives, more good vs less harm. We torture one terrorist to save a thousand lives, so we are doing the most good with the least amount of harm in the views of Utilitarianism. Potential consequences of this could be the possibility that we do not stop with torturing just one prisoner, but we torture that prisoner’s family or multiple other prisoners in our blind approach to getting the information we want. This would mean that we would be doing more harm and less good, and go against the views of the Utilitarian Approach.
Is the intentional pain that an individual experiences justified if there is the potential to save the lives of many? Torture is the most used weapon in the “war against terrorism” but does it work? The purpose of this essay is to identify what the motives for torturing are, the effectiveness of torture, and important issues with the whole process of torture.
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
America prides itself in treated all individuals humanely and fairly, and even one person under force suffering is against what America stands for. America should never justify torture based on our beliefs we were built on. Bruce Anderson says, “A man can retain his human dignity in front of a firing squad or on the scaffold: not in a torture chamber. Torturers set out to break their victim: to take human being and reduce him to a whimpering wreck” (Anderson 1). America does not believe in breaking someone down, but rather build them up. When an American messes up, in jail we continue to build them up. We help them get a college degree, try to work some of their unwanted qualities out, and give them the opportunities to better themselves. America is supposed to be the leader and teach the world that torture is not the answer. That is why nearly a quarter of American people believe torture should never be used of justified (ProQuest 2). Americans still hold the core values that this beautiful country was built
Mill, J. S., Bentham, J., & Ryan, A. (1987). Utilitarianism and other essays. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
‘Kantian Ethics’ in [EBQ] James P Sterba (ed) Ethics: the Big Questions, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998, 185-198. 2) Kant, Immanuel. ‘Morality and Rationality’ in [MPS] 410-429. 3) Rachel, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, fourth edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003.
O’Neill, Onora. “Kantian Ethics.” A Companion to Ethics. Ed. Peter Singer. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 1991. 175-185. Print.
Furrow, Dwight. Ethics- Key Concepts In Philosophy. New York, NY: Continuum, 2005. Print. 20 Oct. 2011
The ticking time bomb scenario is simplistic. A bomb has been planted in a highly populated city, we don't know where it has been situated but we have the suspected terrorist in custody. Time is running out and we have no answers to the location. The ticking time bomb scenario outlines that in this situation, it would be justifiable to torture the suspect if it meant saving thousands of lives. (Buffachi, Arrigo, 2006) This scenario indicates various reasons to legitimise torture and provides desirable and even heroic qualities in committing the act. Though it initially appears as a persuasive argument of heroic actions of the good of thousands over the good of the one, it raises several issues on whether or not it is still morally permissible to torture no matter what the scenario implies. Though the morality of the act in this scenario is riddled with inconsistencies and fictitious outcomes, it has become the prime support in arguments that justify the use of torture in the 21st century war on terror.