Torture Is It Ever Ethical
Sociologists are torn between the old theories of morality. Which one is more desirable? While you ponder on this, let us reflect on the moral debate surrounding torture; the inflicting of a bodily harm to suspected criminals to make them reveal all they know about a crime. What is the stance of ancient morality? Do new moral scientists offer a solution? Moral Theories on torturing: Kant and Mill Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), a German is among the old moral philosophers of the ancient past living in the ripe 18th century (Golob & Jens, 2017). In “Critique of Pure Reason”, Kant argues that morality should be abiding by some stipulated rules of judgment opposing his predecessor’s stipulation that morality should be judged on the consequences of an action.
To be sure, Kant was opposed to Aristotelian ethics that morality should be doing the thing that brings happiness to the greatest number of people involved (Golob & Jens, 2017). This earned his ethics the name “utilitarianism (Golob & Jens, 2017). ” John Stuart Mill is an Utilitarian philosopher, had the main belief that moral or ethical decisions should be made on the grounds of deriving the greatest goods for the largest number. It basically meant that intentions or actions that would maximize on the pleasure as well as the satisfaction of the people while at the same time, the action minimizes the negativity in the affluence which is at most times referred to as the Ultimate Importance. In this respect, Utilitarianism can also be well compared to the deontological ethics, these do not take the consequences of the account or action as being a determination.
From Stuart’s view, it would be obvious that he would fully support the idea of adverse interrogation techniques as well as torture on various suspects. On the other hand, to Harris, if one can comfortably produce any form of ethical argument that is against torturing an individual, then, this makes the person not to have an argument against the use of torture at all. However, Kant would ask him in German, “Mein Freund, können Sie nicht sehen, welches Gesetz jemals erlaubt hat, Leiden oder sogar Tod zuzufügen” meaning “My Friend, can’t you see, which law ever permitted inflicting suffering or even death?” Kant would disagree with Sam on the ground that Sam is violating the law that has to be observed in the latter (Harris, 2011).
In another instance, Charles Fried a Harvard Law Professor with his son Gregory Fried of Suffolk tend to take side with Immanuel Kant. They go in history to narrate how the noble fathers of America; the Lincolns and Washingtons advised soldiers not to inflict torture to the enemy, lest it will take away the dignity of the great nation, America. They advise that no torture should ever be inflicted to a criminal whatever crimes they have committed. As time goes by, research and policy will usher neutrality that everybody will like and perhaps, justify torture or wholly oppose it. Works Cited Block, Melissa, and Robert, Siegel. 'Because It Is Wrong': A Meditation On Torture’. A Meditation on Torture with Charles and Gregory Fried.
From $10 to earn access
Only on Studyloop