Kant proclaimed that one must “act in such a way that you treat that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means." Thus, the act of torture treats another as a means to achieve an end and is morally reprehensible. Furthermore, Kant emphasizes the unique value of human life, agreeing with the Christian ethical principle of “The Golden Rule”, "Do to others what you want them to do to you.” Upon my initial inspection, these propositions seemed to uphold a rational column of ethics, respecting human liberty and freedoms. After watching Sandel’s video, however, I was immediately captivated by the argument, derived from “Kantian ethics”, that you are not allowed to torture a person, even under the most extreme circumstances. I felt deep-seated unease and discontent as I watched Carolin Emcke describe the Kantian ethical system as it relates to Jakob Von Metzler’s murder case. To my dismay, Emcke defended the rights of Jakob’s kidnapper/murderer, advocating absolutely against his torture and treatment as an end. Personally, I would approach this scenario, and all other scenarios regarding torture, …show more content…
To me, the kidnapper, and anyone who commits a crime on a similar scale, forfeits all human rights and effectively removes himself from humanity by carrying out such a heinous deed. He is no longer deserving of respect, dignity, or kindness, and may be subject to any punishment fit to the degree of his crime. I, too, believe in the upholding of “The Golden Rule”, but in a much more literal sense. If one commits a crime against an innocent person, he/she should be prepared to receive the same fate, as I think reciprocation is morally acceptable. To bring this out of the theoretical and into modern debates, I think the death penalty is
Who wouldn’t have agreed? Yes, torture is cruel but it is less cruel than the substitute in many positions. Killing Hitler wouldn’t have revived his millions of victims nor would it have ended war. But torture in this predicament is planned to bring no one back but to keep faultless people from being sent off. Of course mass murdering is far more barbaric than torture. The most influential argument against using torture as a penalty or to get an acknowledgment is that such practices ignore the rights of the particulars. Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture” discusses both sides of being with and being against torture. This essay gets readers thinking a lot about the scenarios Levin mentioned that torture is justified. Though using pathos, he doesn’t achieve the argument as well as he should because of the absence of good judgment and reasoning. In addition to emotional appeal, the author tries to make you think twice about your take on
Capital punishment is most commonly known as the death penalty or punishment by death for a crime. It is a highly controversial topic and many people and great thinkers alike have debated about it. Two well-known figures are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Although both stand in favor of capital punishment, their reasons for coming to this conclusion are completely different. I personally stand against capital punishment, but my own personal view on it incorporates a few mixed elements from both individuals as well as my own personal insight. Firstly, in order to understand why Kant and Mill support capital punishment, we must first understand their views on punishment in general.
Kant believed consequences were irrelevant and an individual should do as they please at that very moment in time. An example would be a person went to their neighbor’s home while they were gone to turn on the heater so when they returned home it was warm. A consequence to turning on their heater is their house burned down, but according to Kant, since your intentions were good you cannot be at fault. Kant also believed each person has dignity and not to treat others as a means, to one’s personals ends (Rich, 2008). In other words, do not treat others as an instrument to achieve a goal. For example, a researcher that is risking the well-being of an individual participating in an experiment for the sake of finding a drug that may save many lives.
In his essay “The Case for Torture,” printed in The Norton Reader 13th Edition, Michael Levin argues that torture is justified and necessary under extreme circumstance. He believes that if a person accepts torture to be justified under extreme cases, then the person automatically accepts torture. Levin presents weak argument and he mostly relies on hypothetical scenarios. There is not concrete evidence that torture solves problems and stop crime but rather the contrary. Under international law, torture is illegal and all the United Nation members have to abide by those rules. The use of torture does not keep people safe, but rather the opposite. Torture has a profound effect on democracy. As the use of torture becomes normal in society, the right of the citizen will suffer greatly.
Philosophy is one’s oxygen. Its ubiquitous presence is continuously breathed in and vital to survival, yet its existence often goes unnoticed or is completely forgotten. Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant was one of the many trees depositing this indispensable system of beliefs into the air. Philosophy is present in all aspects of society, no matter how prominent it may be. As Kant was a product of the Scientific Revolution in Europe, the use of reason was an underlying component in the entirety of his ideas. One of his main principles was that most human knowledge is derived from experience, but one also may rely on instinct to know about something before experiencing it. He also stated that an action is considered moral based on the motive behind it, not the action itself. Kant strongly believed that reason should dictate goodness and badness (McKay, 537). His philosophies are just as present in works of fiction as they are in reality. This is exemplified by Lord of the Flies, a fiction novel written by William Golding. The novel strongly focuses on the origins of evil, as well as ethics, specifically man’s treatment of animals and those around him. Kant’s philosophy is embedded in the thoughts and actions of Piggy, Ralph, Jack, and Simon throughout the novel. Kant’s beliefs also slither into “Snake,” a poem by D.H. Lawrence, focusing on the tainting of the pure human mind by societal pressures and injustices. Overall, both the poet in “Snake” and Piggy, Ralph, Jack, and Simon in Lord of the Flies showcase Immanuel Kant’s theories on ethics, reasoning, and nature.
Finally, Levin concludes his article with a premonition that one day someone will threaten thousands of lives and torture will be the only way to save them. I say this is a grim but possibly realistic future. If one is willing to harm thousands of people without the thought of repercussions of his or her actions they have extraordinarily little care for their own lives and in turn would die before retracting their beliefs. So yes the threat of someone harming thousands of people will always remain but torture may not be the answer to that predicament.
I am going to apply the theory of Kant’s Deontology to the case regarding assisted suicide for psychological suffering.
Torture is something that can cause severe emotional and physical damage along with being a method to compel someone to reveal “valuable” information (“Definition of torture,” n.d.). When a person is being tortured they could also be compel to participate in an activity they don’t want to do (“Definition of torture,” n.d.). Since ancient times torture has been a method used to obtain valuable intelligence. Presently, the use of torture to acquire beneficial facts is a highly controversial topic. Torture is a highly controversial topic because no one knows how effective it is at retrieving information plus it violates human rights and dignity (“Why is Torture Wrong?” 2014).
...t it should become a universal law." In order to understand what this means, we have to discern what Kant means by maxims. Kant believed that people did certain things for particular motives, and when they did these things they were adhering to a maxim. With that in mind, we can understand the Categorical Imperative to mean that we should only act a definite way in a situation if that action would be suitable every time that situation came about. Kant later restated his Categorical Imperative to say that we should act so as to treat humanity, whether in our own person or in that of another, constantly as an end, and never as a means to an end. In other words, we should not merely exploit people in order to achieve our own goals. We should not treat them merely as objects, or tools, to be used in our own doings. To this end, Schindler's plea for mercy seems sensible.
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 to do what is best for the greater good, then there is no question that we would torture this one man so that we may save thousands. Take a step back and look at this situation from another angle. What truly is the greater good here? Let us focus on the idea that “if punishing John will do no good, then John should go free” (Pojman, 2002, p.109). What is the chance that a captured soldier is going to give away the secret location of the bomb? It is highly likely he has been trained not to speak under any circumstances. If he does not speak then you have just diminished utility for every single person involved.
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, which aimed to figure out at long-term effects of untreated syphilis by studying 400 African American men who had the disease, began in 1932 . The study took place over several decades without any intervention despite the rise in Penicillin as a treatment in the 1950s . If administered, the medication could have saved the subjects from a great deal of pain and suffering. None of this information came to light until the 1970s when the study was published and despite the obvious ethical oversights, even when an investigation was opened, important questions of the researchers were never asked and documents that would have exposed the problems with the study were never pursued . The case is particularly egregious when analyzed through the lens of Emmanuel Kant’s ethics philosophy. Due to Kant’s focus on the concept of the Categorical Imperative, which postulates that for an action to be considered moral it must be universally moral, Kant would consider the Tuskegee case to be unethical because of the blatant dishonesty, lack of informed consent, and withholding of
It is called the second formulation of the categorical imperative. According to Kant, it suggests that people should treat others as the way they want to be treated. He states, “Act in such a way that treat humanity, [...] always at the same time as an end never simply means” (36).All human beings have intrinsic value in themselves. Therefore human beings should not be view each other as tools that provide benefits. Instead we should treat each other well without thinking about the benefits we may get and treat others as same human beings as ourselves who are inherently valuable in
People face ethical choices every day, and there are several different approaches towards reaching a decision. A professor is tasked with making a decision as to whether he should report a high-achieving student, Charlie, for plagiarizing an article. The professor must use reasoning and ethics. One of the most famous form of ethics is Kantian ethics, which is a form of deontology, or duty-based ethics. The professor can use Kantian ethics to make his decision, or he can take into account the context of the situation to further asses as I would do.
Are kidnapping and legal incarceration the same? They both involve imprisonment against one’s will. Obviously, these opponents have flawed logic and therefore, if two acts end in the same result, they are not necessarily morally equivalent. Great effort has been made in our criminal justice system in pretrial, trial, appeals, writ and clemency procedures to minimize the chance of innocent person being convicted and sentenced to death. Since 1973, legal protections have been so great that 37 percent of all death row cases have been overturned for due process reasons or commuted.
On the opposite side, there are people very much in favor of the use of torture. To them, torture is a “morally defensible” interrogation method (8). The most widely used reason for torture is when many lives are in imminent danger. This means that any forms of causing harm are acceptable. This may seem reasonable, as you sacrifice one life to save way more, but it’s demoralizing. The arguments that justify torture usually are way too extreme to happen in the real world. The golden rule also plays a big rol...