The Fitting Theory Of Virtue Not Torture

Truth telling is one of the most fundamental ethical actions a person can take. However, not telling the truth can also have an ethical component, especially from the perspective of ethical consequentialism. For Immanuel Kant, it is always immoral and wrong to lie. There are ethical absolutes according to Kant's

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).

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,

Torture has been practised for several centuries. Whether it was the Iron maiden or waterboarding, its goal, inducing pain on a certain victim, has stayed the same. Despite all of our social advancements, this heinous and barbaric act is continually defended and justified. Torture is a crime against all living

Ethics of Torture 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?

Evergreen Paper (Spring 2017) 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

Taking a closer look into the moral reasoning behind torture, we use the theories of two philosophers, Kant and Mill, to determine whether or not torture is ever ethical. John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant, both proposed different philosophies, using deontological and teleological theories in ethics. John Stuart Mill used a teleological theory, which prioritized the end result of an action, based off the moral nature of the action itself, compared to the deontological theory proposed by Kant, which presented actions as obligations of an individual, leading them to act in a certain way. Mill used a code of ethics, also known as utilitarianism, which provided ideal principles, in the role of each individual. These principles were imperative to how a person should use them, and in the fashion which they must do so. The more happiness produced from an action, was the scale of how right or wrong an action became. Something that produced the greatest amounts of happiness were right, and actions that produced the least amount of happiness, were wrong. These were the standards set into place. In other words, the consequences of the actions were how they were determined moral or not, not the actual actions themselves.

Intentionally tormenting or causing harm for any reason is inherently a depraved practice even though there may be satisfactory results. First of all, to engage in inhumane treatment is against moralistic rules. Tormenting may have effective results, but the results do not alleviate the fact that the practice is immoral. Additionally, getting answers that protect nations by any means is practical; however, if one considers principles, then the act of torture is off the mark as it relates to a morally and ethical society. Finally when torture occurs, who is hurt the most, the offender or the offended? While the external effects of torture can cause physical harm that breaks the resolve of the tormented person, the tormentor's intrinsic

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.

According to critics, a major problem with the theory is the difficulty of establishing the nature of the virtues, especially as different people, cultures and societies often have vastly different opinions on what constitutes a virtue. Some proponents counter-argue that any character trait defined as a virtue must be universally regarded as a virtue for all people in all times, so that such cultural relativism is not relevant. Others, however, argue that the concept of virtue must indeed be relative and grounded in a particular time and place, but this in no way negates the value of the theory, merely keeps it current.

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

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

Torture: Friend or Foe 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.

1.Virtue Theories Summary: The Virtue Theories focus on two main ideas. The first idea is to develop good habits of character such as wisdom, courage, temperance and justice.The second idea is to avoid acquiring bad character traits such as injustice and vanity. In addition to this two main ideas, Virtue theory emphasizes moral education since virtuous character traits are developed in one’s youth and emerge from within social tradition.

Experience tells us that when faced with serious threats to the life of the nation, government -- any government -- will take whatever measures it considers necessary to cut the crisis. A refusal to give in or back down in any way, complete and total prohibition on torture sets unrealistic standards that no one can hope to meet when faced with extremely dangerous circumstances. It doesn’t matter if it is necessary or reasonable; torture is never easy to have a solid answer. Values always play a huge role in a debate such as this one. When they do happen they present decision-makers with truly sad choices. To torture or not to torture? In my opinion, to deny the use of preventive questioning, torture in such conditions can be as cold-hearted and socially wrong as it is to let torture in the first place. It is cold-hearted because, in true extremely terrible cases, the failure to use preventive questioning, torture will result in the death of innocent people. Judging the rights of the suspect will cancel the rights, including the very basic right to life, of innocent victims.