A Comparison Of Mill And Kant

1008 Words3 Pages

Overview of the ideas of Mill and Kant as they relate to ethics

Many experts will argue that torture is an unreliable means of getting useful information. Two examples of differing views of the use of torture come from Mill and Kant. Each of these philosophers have strong opinions and stances of the moral and ethical use of torture.
Mill would say that Pain is bad, pleasure is good so with everything being equal, though people have many different and conflicting moral beliefs, people agree that pain is bad, and pleasure is good. (Be sure to cite this)
His theory on ethics is that torture is acceptable if it brings happiness/pleasure to the majority of people than if the torture were not carried out. For example, if one terrorist has information that will prevent an act of terror that would prevent the death of hundreds of innocent people and by obtaining this information it would likely save all of those lives he would probably agree that the use of torture would be acceptable; even justified given the likelihood of the number of lives that would be impacted.

Kant’s view emphasizes the importance …show more content…

Kant would be opposed because it is the moral conviction of torture being wrong why one should not undertake in it. One extra wrench is that Kant would not be opposed to the idea of torture, or the ethical stance on the issue, because only the actions would really matter in the real world. Aristotle, on the other hand, or another virtue ethicist is more of an idealist, in which if one COULD perform torture but only chooses not to, that person is a bad person

That the circumstances surrounding terroristic acts the need for torture by siting examples and upping the ante by appealing to the fears of a variety of people and their need to protect their lives and

Open Document