Virtue ethics seem to be the fitting theory to take when it comes to torture. Torture could not be referred to as virtuous, it goes against the love and justice that God teaches us. Jesus spoke about virtues in various parts of the bible. Colossians 3:14 also discussed the virtues that a Christian walk. Torture could never be an option. Punishment for the crime, absolutely, but not torture.
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.
Some ethic theories make an attempt to answer such questions as torture. Approaching this scenario from a view point of utilitarianism, from my understanding, would justify the act of torture for the greater good. Ethics Approaching Moral Decisions states,
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.
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
By definition, torture is the act of inflicting serious psychological or physical pain on an individual with an aim of affecting the individual or group, punishing the person for deeds committed, or to acquire information from the person. Torture is usually carried out with the full permission of an individual who works for a public body or a civil servant. In other words, torture can be defined as a severe and systematic violation of the integrity of an individual with extreme social and psychological consequences. Essentially, it is assumed that torture is completely impermissible and is further considered as an ancient practice which outlived its usefulness long time a ago. Societies that consider themselves
The act of torture is meant to humiliate and harm a life until the person instilling the pain gets what they want out of the person. This act violates the laws of humanity, and is nothing more than cruel and unusual punishment. Studies show that torture can cause actual damage to the memory of the person it is done to. (Cooper) This discovery makes it clear that torture not only causes physical and mental damage, but also the information taken from it has likely been altered. Torture benefits neither the victim, nor the instigator, because, unless he is some sort of sociopath, no one enjoys inflicting pain on other human beings. The tactic of torture is also very immoral, because it goes against the basic principle that you should not do wrong onto others. One could also incorporate the wise proverb that, “you can not fight fire with fire,” because it is basically saying there is no need for retaliation, even if others have done wrong. An example of this would be to not lash back at those who cause you harm. This basic concept of actions causing consequences can be taken to a much larger scale, and can also be intertwined back into the topic of torture. Take for example how Al Qaeda had been causing harm and then how the United States of America stepped in and began interrogating these people using different forms of torture in hopes of stopping them. Although it did help somewhat, it has
Conflict between consequential and rights based morals theories that are not new. In 530AD was the first recording of torture was originated, when the Roman jurists torture those who did not conform to their ideology or religion. A Roman catholic by the name of Demosthenes believed “no statements made as a result of torture have been proved untrue” (thejusticecampaign.org/2010). It did have its critics, Aristotle was able to recognized the true nature of torture that, “ those under compulsion are as likely to give false evidence as true, some being ready to endure to endure everything rather than tell the truth, while others are really ready to make false charges against other, in the hope of sooner released from torture”. (thejusticecampaign.org/2010). Almost every dictionary that has been published in the last 3 decades has at least three different definitions of torture. Either it is a narrow point blank answer or the broad one, however it all means the same, cruel and unusual
The easiest ethical system to use to tackle this subject is deontological ethics. Deontological ethics include ethical systems that ask, “What is the rule?” There
I believe torture is only morally permissible in extreme emergency situations. By extreme emergency situations I mean when there is a risk that hundreds of people will be killed if the victim does not provide certain information. In the ticking time bomb case, interrogators have tried all the acceptable methods to get the code to disarm the bomb and have failed to do so and hence it is morally permissible to torture the person to get the code otherwise we will be putting the lives of millions of people at risks. Also, some cases where torture would be morally permissible are where the torturer is hundred percent sure that the victim is the perpetrator and has significant information to bring about greater good. This victim can be a kidnapper, a bomber, a terrorist or even a secret service agent who is selling confidential information. I also believe that while torturing someone the degree of torture should not be too high and it should be in the knowledge of highest law authority. A medical practitioner should also be present while torturing a victim so that there should be no risk to the life of the perpetrator. As Henry Shue said that “An act of torture ought to remain illegal” and anyone has to justify in order defending himself/herself legally (Shue). I strongly believe that under any circumstance torture should not be legalized whether it is for
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines torture as the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something. But what would one call morally acceptable torture? Is sleep depriving a criminal in order to find out the location of a missing person wrong? Does waterboarding a terrorist to find out information count as a morally correct reason to torture?
To torture or not to torture, is a huge controversial subject in today’s society. We have seen how many are tortured throughout the world for information and ultimately result in an undeserved death. By torturing men, women, and even children is to help find pertinent information or help stop future attacks. Not everyone is going to see eye to eye on whether or not torture is the right thing to do to gain information. There are four theories we are to discuss utilitarianism, Kantian duty-based ethics, virtue ethics, and Christian-principle based ethics.
To torture or not to torture is a very touchy subject. If the decision is based solely on utilitarianism view, there would be no question asked if torture was a good idea or not. This decision would most likely save lives based of the scenario given. This choice would gain the best benefit to U. S. people, no matter the consequences. If torture would have been an option, or maybe it was, prior to the 911 attack, then yes this would have been the last attempt to save lives. On the other hand, Kant’s duty-based ethic, might imply willingness torture as well if there is a thought that there is right motivation behind it, but on the other hand Kant says, “always treat persons as an ends not just as means” which is contradictory (Holms, pg. 63). A decision based on Virtue ethic would lead one to disagree with torture based the question asked, such as what kind of person
Torture can be defined as, the action of purposely inflicting physical or psychological pain on another individual in order to get information out of them. Although many may argue that torture isn’t necessary, it is necessary because by torturing we are able to save thousands of innocent lives. Torture has been around since ancient times; however, during ancient times it was much more violent than it is today.
After reading your discussion, I would have to agree with you on all of the points you made throughout your discussion. I am also an animal lover and I do not think animals should be held in captivity for our own pleasure. I am also against unsafe fishing practices that result in harming and killing animals. I noticed that you applied your argument to theory of virtue ethics. I do believe that being a good role model for future generations could have an impact on how we view animals in the world. Utilitarianism can also be applied to captive animals and unsafe fishing practices. The happiness of humans does not outweigh the suffering of captive animals or animals that are injured or killed in fishing nets. In regards to whether certain animals should be given special considerations, I noticed that you think that all animals should be considered equal.
The definition of torture is the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain. The question on our minds is whether or not torture should be allowed. After doing research I believe that torture should not be allowed. We have multiple laws that state that torture is illegal, torture is immoral, and there are cases and evidence that show that torture has led to false admissions.