Christian Princible Based Ethics Analysis

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

KSM is a mastermind terrorist who has been captured by the CIA. He refuses to reveal any information about his organization or the members thereof that could be fundamental to the welfare of hundreds of lives. Even under the presence of coercive methods such as sleep deprivation and water boarding, he has refused to talk. His nine and eleven year old children have been brought into custody and a suggestion has been made to torture the children. Is the option ethical or moral in any sense? Utilitarianism provides two answers for the question; one asserting the general rule of utility, the other expanding on

The institution of torture has been in existence for quite sometime; however, it was not always seen as an ethical question. In antiquity, the Romans employed something known as “the cat-of-nine-tails,” which was a flogging instrument with nine sharp ends. However, the use of torture was not confined to the West, the Chinese utilized “bamboo sticks to beat people.” During antiquity, torture was used as a punishment, but during the Spanish Inquisition, this notion of torture evolved to a means to extract withheld information. Today torture is unofficially used to extract information; however, it is officially illegal according to the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions. Nonetheless, the issue of legality and

Another sad fact is that no one decides if the process is ethical or not it just happens (Einolf 102). Back in the Roman times, they were not allowed to participate in the act of torture (Einolf 107). Torture began being used quite frequently in the Chin century. Many people were still not sure what the difference was between punishment and torture. It was mainly believed that cruel punishment was pretty much teacher no matter what anyone said (Einolf 108). Even as recent as in 2004, many people thought it was unethical and inhumane to punish people (Einolf 101).

Interrogational torture is one of the many tough ethical questions that people debate about in the United States. Is it right or is it wrong? Many believe that the United States does not practice intense interrogational acts such as torture. Many people have fought to abolish any form of torture while many fight to keep some forms of it to help keep the peace. Whether you believe in it or not, torture is and will always be an ethical dilemma that comes up.

The use of torture as an interrogation method sparks many legal and ethical concerns. How can you authorize the infliction of physical violence onto a human being in order to gain information? As humans in Canada, we have basic human rights outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. According to this charter, under the rule of law “Everyone has the right to not be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment” (Section 12).

Throughout modern history, morals is questioned when torture is involved. Torture should be a black and white, yes or no question. It is acceptable to do an immoral act, as long as the act itself is legal, to create a good outcome. In the case of Mr. Wolfgang Daschner, it does not matter that it was uncertain whether using torture gets the required information. To threaten to use torture is the same as actually torturing, both legally and morally. Should torture and the threat of torture be morally and legally acceptable, then in all levels involving local, state and federal systems should be able to use torture techniques.

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.

The most ethical resolution for torture in interrogations is to allow it to only happen during certain times. Psychologists should develop a method where minimal risks of long term problems occur. I believe this is the most ethical way, because to protect national security we need information about terrorist attacks quickly. Additionally, America needs to be able to trust the source of the information. I also believe that the CIA should also perform back ground checks on the people being questioned to prevent the risk of hurting innocents. I believe that this will be justified, because we should protect the majority while taking the fewest causalities. We will need to obtain the information so there would be no further attacks and we could

Torture in its basic essence began long ago. Civilizations have tortured many who have wronged them for thousands of years. The definition of torture is a broad and diverse as it includes mental, emotional, and physical aspects. From ancient Egypt, to medieval times and even to present day, torture has been a prevalent theme across cultures, and has undoubtedly helped to mold the society around us. This hotly debated issue has been on the forefront of

Coercive interrogation does not work in producing timely, reliable, and life saving information. Thus far, much of the discussion in this area has been concerned with the procedural, legal, and philosophical issues raised by torture. Only very limited attention has been given to the issue of effectiveness. Even if one concludes that torture can sometimes be riddled with moral objections, the argument for coercive techniques depends on the assumption that torture is an effective means of obtaining information. This is a dubious assumption. Scientific investigations of torture as an effective tool of interrogation have found no evidence that it is effective. That conclusion comes from a 2006 report on torture by the Intelligence Science Board. If torture is not an effective means to deduce information from a suspect, it is difficult to justify torture, as many experts in the field agree, even if you assert that it is necessary in certain circumstances. In addition, even if torture may work, if there are other ways to elicit information, the use of torture is not necessary. Lastly, it is super counter intuitive and has the potential to lead to radicalization.

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.

Wonderful, short, summary of the views applicable to this case, and the defense for the view that you hold most. However, I believe that there is more to the Christian-principle based view of ethics, than what you give credit for. According to Arthur F. Holmes’ book, Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions, one would find that the Christian view holds four tenants, or ideas, to shape the understanding of ethics, in which these views are: cases, area rules (moral rules), principles, bases (theological and philosophical). Thereby, one must go through these four sets of criteria to figure out if an action is right or if it is wrong. Following this line of logic, and if one were to look in the Bible for the answers, one would find torture is not right.

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