Case Study: Applying Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development

Torture is something that is known as wrong internationally. Torture is “deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting on the orders of authority, to force a person to yield information, to confess, or any other reason” (World Medical Association, 1975, pg.1). There is a general consensus that there is a right to be free from any kind of torture as it can be found in many different human rights treaties around the world. The treaties show that all of the thoughts about torture are pointing away from the right to torture someone no matter what the case

Lawrence Kohlberg was a well known psychologist best known for his thorough research into the development and better understanding of the processes needed to grow into a well developed human being. Kohlberg grew up in New York City on October 25, 1927. Growing up in such a diverse area is what struck his interest in the development of all beings. In only one short year he received his bachelors degree and then went on to devote his career to study the understanding of development for the youth. Kohlberg 's stages of moral development were very much influenced by his peer Jean Piaget. Jean Piaget also had a similar belief of a stage-based theory of development. While Piaget only had two

Levin begins by tacitly admitting that torture is both unconstitutional and barbaric, but then follows each of those premises up with comparisons of the alternative of not using torture. Levin states: “Torturing the terrorist unconstitutional? Probably. But millions of lives surely outweigh constitutionality.” (Michael Levin, pg. 605) Levin begins with comforting you with the notion that torture is unconstitutional, as you would

According to the blog The Spector, “A terrorist group is believed to be in possession of a nuclear device. Time is desperately short, but we have captured a member of the group. In such circumstances, torture would surely be justified” (Andersen, 2014). Torture should be used in certain situations. In conditions when a child is being tortured is is not okay, but when it is a terrorist it is okay. Torture should be used when large groups of people are being threatened. According to The New York Times, “Torture can be morally justifiable, and even obligatory, when it is wholly defensive--for example when torturing a wrongdoer would prevent him from seriously harming innocent people” (Gutting, McMahan, 2015). Torturing people is okay when used right. People should only use torture when many other people's lives are at risk. Although torturing someone to save a large group of people may seem good, it’s not, because they could give false information to get you to stop, and you may injure more people than you

Torture is not a new ethical dilemma, because torture has been practiced throughout human history and in different cultures. Now, however, the Geneva Convention and other modern norms suggest that human beings should not resort to using torture. Torture is becoming taboo as a method of intelligence gathering, which is why the methods used during the Iraq war were decried. However, the ethical case can be made for torture. If torturing one human being leads to information that could save the lives of a thousand, torture suddenly seems like a sensible method. This is a utilitarian perspective on torture, which many people find palatable. However, there are problems with this method of thinking about torture. The state-sanctioned use of torture creates a normative framework in which torture becomes acceptable. Torture sends the wrong message about what a free, open, and enlightened society should be. Even if torture is only acceptable in extreme circumstances, as with a suspect who might know something about an impending terrorist attack, who decides when and what type of torture should be used? There is too much potential for abuse of the moral loophole with regards to torture. If the United States hopes to be a role model, then torture cannot fit into its intelligence methods.

With reference to authors’ arguments against torture, it may be true that legitimizing this system may cause slippage and mistakes to be made. However these mistakes can be prevented to the full extent of the law. There must be conditions that make unauthorized, and over-excessive torture illegal; violators will be prosecuted in the same way police are tried for brutality. In saying this I agree with Eric Posner, a proponent of the legalized torture system, in the sense that torture should be treated like any other form of evil that exists in our laws today (Rumney, O’Boyle,

According to Michael Levin’s article, “The Case for Torture,” his view on torture is that there are many situations in which torture would be against the law but would be obligatory for someone’s conscious. One common example used is the ticking time bomb situation. The situation is that if there was an atomic bomb located somewhere in Manhattan ready to detonate soon, and

If someone has information pertaining about a bomb that would kill thousands of innocent people, you would want to know about it. If they were not willing to give it up then torture would be necessary I know it is grim but is one life worth as many as thousands of lives. It is a tough call, but torture can be justified in some

From the perspective of someone like Kant who believes that morality is absolute and torture is wrong, then it is never acceptable no matter what the consequences. Kant would argue that it is better to allow a 'ticking bomb' to go off and kill thousands by not using torture than to willingly torture someone, because as mere mortals we can never know for certain what the ultimate results of our actions will be - there may not be a bomb at all, or the man you have may not be the one who set it, or someone else may disarm it - but we can be certain of our intent, and thus we should never act with evil intent, which wilful torture certainly is.

Michael Yoo used several definitions from several different places to define torture in his argument. The first definition is the one he used when he defined torture as the following: act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control. The other definition he uses it used to show what the government defines torture as. This definition is as follows: The United States

Torture has been around for a long time. However, most countries in the world have supposedly stopped using it as an interrogation technique. In fact, it is outlawed by: the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United National Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and many other international conventions. Also, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court says that “torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” are war crimes and crimes against humanity (What does the law). In his essay “A Case for Torture,” though, Michael Levin argues that a case for using

In the Mad Bomber scenario, I do consider the torturing method to be ethical. You have a man threatening to kill hundreds of people by his own will. Knowing that you would have people’s lives at stake, if you can torture one bad person to save hundreds of good people’s lives than you should. Maybe taking something precious that he cannot live without will get him to cooperate. Not necessarily stating that you would harm his family or something precious to him.

In this case, Russell is in Mr. Willow’s eighth-grade biology class. After scoring a 72 percent on his first test, Russell’s dad threatens to take away his extracurricular activities. Worried that his dad will take away his social life, Russell decides that he is going to work extra hard on his genetics assignment so that he can improve his grade and get back on his dad’s good side. After hearing that Mr. Willow’s genetics assignment is extremely difficult, Russell is persuaded by his soccer teammate, Luis, to use his brother’s assignment that he turned in to Mr. Willow a few years back that had received a high grade. Thinking about pleasing his dad, keeping his social life, and not getting made fun of by his teammate, Russell turns in Luis’ brother’s assignment as his own. Mr. Willow notices that the paper is not Russell’s original work and embarrasses him in front of the entire class. Given Russell’s age and actions, Russell is in the conventional stage of Kohlberg’s Moral Development, more specifically the “Good boy/Good girl” stage because he is looking to meet other people’s expectations when he is making decisions. For example, Russell used Luis’s brother’s assignment because he wanted to get a good grade that would please his dad. Secondly, Russell knew that if Luis found out that he didn’t use his brother’s assignment, Luis would more than likely make fun of him.

Kohlberg’s stages of moral development were based on a moral philosopher by the name of Lawrence Kohlberg. His main interest was to observe children during growth to develop and conclude which stages they best fit into. After observing both adults and children, he concluded that, “Human beings progress consecutively from one stage to the next in an invariant sequence” (“Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development”). All of the 6 stages he created, represent the morality in which a child or adult can be at; he created an age zone for each stage. There are a total of 6 stages but each main concept consists of 3 levels. Level 1 is the preconventional stage. This stage focuses on punishment/obedience and how the person decides to act due to the

Goldman Sachs should have been punished for its behavior in the years leading up to the financial crisis. Goldman ended up settling with the federal government for $110 Billion, which I do not believe was sufficient based on the magnitude of problems created. This amount should have been much larger, and at minimum they should have forfeited the $14 Billion paid to them by AIG. (Inside Job, 2011) In addition, AIG should have had the right to sue Goldman Sachs for fraud. It was in the public’s best interest to keep Goldman up and running, however additional penalties could have been put on a repayment schedule to keep them solvent. Instead, you had Goldman giving out large bonuses.