Theory For Torture On Utilitarianism

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

Therefore, when considering the KSM case with the application of justice under utilitarianism, it seems as though it is not logical to torture the children to obtain information from their father. The torturing of children violates the laws applicable to the definition of justice under utilitarianism. If these children are tortured, the principle that all individuals are equal and to all their justice deserts, would be invalid. These children have done nothing wrong and do not deserve to be tortured, thus the punishment that would befall them is not parallel to the ideals presented in the definition of justice. Also, the lives of these children were not properly accounted for, for if justice states that all lives are equal and that none is more valuable than the rest, then it is rational and coextensive with justice to not torture the children. By not performing the horrendous notion, these children’s lives are not placed lower than the rest, but the opposing view could also be taken stating that by not torturing these children they are placed above thousands of other lives, giving their lives more value than the multitude, and this is does not correspond with the definition of justice. Therefore, torturing these children is not a favorable option when considering the application of

I have been unable to deliberate on the appropriate alternative method for this particular dilemma. When it comes to the topic of torture, the popular attitude is that it is sometimes required. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of ethics and efficiency. Whereas some are convinced that it is an effective policy, others maintain that it is not successful practice. To further support the stance that the torture policy is not necessary effective, Army Col. Stuart Herrington inserted, in his experience, “nine out of ten people can be persuaded to talk with no 'stress methods' at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones.”

David Figueroa Eng. 101A Professor Stern 4/20/15 Final draft In conclusion, in discussions of torture, one controversial issue has been on the use of it. On one hand, the people against torture argue that it is cruel and unusual punishment. On the other hand, those for torture argue that it should be used for the greater good. Others even maintain that under extreme circumstances, it may be admissible if it can save American lives. My own view is that no one should be subjected to cruel punishment because it is not only illegal, unreliable, ineffective, time consuming, it also has too many flaws that could potentially ruin innocent lives. The definition of torture is any act, whether physical or emotional, or maybe both, is intentionally subjected to a specific individual or a group for many reasons. Most of these reasons that torture is administered is for extracting information from an individual or just for punishing him/her for a crime that he/she has committed or is suspected of committing. The use of torture can be used to intimidate a person to give information that may be beneficial for a nation. The use of torture has been used for many centuries. The purposes of using torture have changed over the years as well as the methods in which a person is tortured. One crucial piece that has been established that separates us human beings from barbarians is the prohibition of using torture. There are many reasons why torture has been deemed a crime now in society. There are

The War on Terror has produced several different viewpoints on the utilization of torture and its effectiveness as a means to elicit information. A main argument has been supplied that torture is ineffective in its purpose to gather information from the victim. The usefulness of torture has been questioned because prisoners might use false information to elude their torturers, which has occurred in previous cases of torture. It has also been supposed that torture is necessary in order to use the information to save many lives. Torture has been compared to civil disobedience. In addition, the argument has been raised that torture is immoral and inhumane. Lastly, Some say that the acts are not even regarded as torture.

Every single person in America today grew up with the belief that torture is morally wrong. Popular culture, religious point of views, and every other form of culture for many decades has taught that it is a wrongdoing. But is torture really a wrong act to do? To examine the act of torture as either a means or an end we must inquire about whether torture is a means towards justice and therefore morally permissible to practice torture on certain occasions. “Three issues dominate the debates over the morality of torture: (1) Does torture work? (2) Is torture ever morally acceptable? And (3) What should be the state’s policy regarding the use of torture?” (Vaughn, 605). Torture “is the intentional inflicting of severe pain or suffering on people to punish or intimidate them or to extract information from them” (Vaughn, 604). The thought of torture can be a means of promoting justice by using both the Utilitarian view and the Aristotelian view. Using John Stuart Mills concept of utilitarianism, he focuses on the greatest happiness principle which helps us understand his perspective on torture and whether he believes it is acceptable to do so, and Aristotle uses the method of virtue of ethics to helps us better understand if he is for torture. The term torture shall be determined by exploring both philosophers’ definition of justice, what comprises a “just” act, what is considered “unjust”, and then determined if it would be accepted by, or condemned by either of these two

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.

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.

Automatically you will have the majority of the population against this idea. However when you add the intent behind the torture, which, in this case is to prevent acts of terrorism. The term “terrorism” is added to the equation, this term has an equally horrific image associated with it. This will have some people re-thinking their assumptions of torture under these specific circumstances.

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

Others may take a more utilitarian view, that torture is wrong because it results in suffering for the tortured and fear for the general populace, who have to live every day with the possibility that they might be arrested mistakenly as a terrorist and subjected to torture to extract information they don't know. After all, from a legal perspective, a 'suspected terrorist' is by definition an innocent man - if he's suspected, he hasn't been convicted - and if you have a regime which tortures suspects, that means you have a regime which can torture anyone, for any reason. Utilitarians might, however, support torture if it the considerable evils of torture were truly lesser than the evils that

For this discussion regarding a possible terrorist attach which may harm many lives the utilitarianism approach would be to torture the captured terrorist in order for the maximum number of innocent lives to be saved of possible danger. The consequences of not doing everything possible to get the captive man to talk could mean an overall catrastophy which would lead to uneccisary deaths.

In the United States legal system, torture is currently defined as “an 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.” as defined by Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (US Code, 1) Though this is a seemingly black and white definition, the conditional “…other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions…” have led many to question what precisely this entails. In other words, what are the lawful sanctions that permit such acts? Are they ethically right? Where is the line drawn as torture

Kantian moral theories make a very strong argument for why torture is wrong just in its definition. If we are using someone in a way which they have not directly consented to this means we are using them as a mere means which is exactly what Kant proposes we avoid (O’Neil, 1986, p.45). Torcher, by definition, cannot be consented to. If it could be, it wouldn’t be called torture. That person would have asked for it and they would have a reason to gain something out of the situation. “The Formula of the End in Itself applies to the intentions on which one acts-not to some prettified version that one may avow”

Holmes explains, the Utilitarianism theory: The ideas that the goal of society should be to bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, the act of utilitarian it is the action towards the morally right act to produce the favorable balance of good over evil which everyone considered, the rule for utilitarianism; action which is only right, if, it is required by rules, for instance don’t kill, steal, lie. etc..” … However,” the Principle of utility actions are right when they tends to promote happiness and wrong when they do the opposite towards morally right actions that are proposing as it maximizes utility and minimizes when the propositions are wrong for instance ,