Ethical choices can made made in many different ways, but are almost never black and white. For instance, in the situation of interrogating an Al-Quaeda operative in order to gain information about a terrorist attack that will injure, or kill many U.S. citizens, we have to first think about whether or not this scenario is an ethical situation. We then have to figure out the many different ways we can solve it. We can use Kant’s Categorical Imperative, the Utilitarian Approach, or the Virtue Approach. First, is whether or not this scenario is an ethical situation. However, what is an ethical situation? To me an ethical situation is a scenario where a person has to make a choice that will not make everyone happy, but is the best choice to make to make ethically at that time. In the above mentioned scenario we have a choice between hurting one person, a terrorist, in order to save many, U.S. citizens, however, is harming that one person justified because he is a terrorist. Another problem that this scenario has is the idea of whether it is ethically correct to torture a terrorist because they are a terrorist. What I mean by that is that in most cases Americans would not torture each other because we have rights, however, in …show more content…
His imperative states that we should, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law” (Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785). What he means by this is that our decision should be able to apply to every situation similar to this. He would also say that we should not let our emotion get involved and rationally think it out. So to me he would torture him in order to protect the U.S. The reason why is if we had to torture a U.S. citizen he would say if we can torture a terrorist and be okay with it then we can torture a U.S. citizen because that choice he made would become his universal
First, the ticking-bomb scenarios are cases in which torturing the terrorist will save many innocent lives at the cost of non-lethal suffering to one individual. Torturing the terrorist would thus produce the most happiness/well-being. This approach has great strengths but also creates complex questions: is torture still the lesser evil if it only saves one person? Is it morally right to torture a person’s children to extract a confession? Is it morally right to torture ninety-nine people in an attempt to save one-hundred others? In theory this type of thinking can justify extreme inhumanity as long as it is calculated as the lesser evil. Secondly, one ought to do what produces the most happiness/well-being. Despite the wider case against torture, a person confronted with the immediate choices in the ‘ticking bomb’ case is unlikely to take these issues into account; ‘interrogators will still use coercion because in some cases they will deem it worth the consequence. Few people would be unable to see a moral basis for torture if it was carried out in a reasonably clear ‘ticking bomb’ case and if the intention of the torturer was to ‘do the right thing.’ The difficulties of the immediate choice between carrying out torture and allowing deaths make it difficult to morally condemn the unfortunate person charged with deciding. Therefore, one ought to torture terrorists in such scenarios. The only pragmatic concern would be that torture does not
Patients who deny suggested consideration represent a critical test in the emergency department. Such patients can be uncooperative, and their capacity to comprehend data may be impeded by medicinal pathology or intoxicants. The outcomes of a choice to reject emergency consideration may be not kidding and lasting. The numerous contending requests of an occupied Emergency treatment now and then make it troublesome for doctors to appropriately survey such patients before they are permitted to leave.
America’s Use of Torture in Interrogations of Suspected Terrorists Violates Human Rights by Lisa Hajjar
As a brand manager at a large food manufacturer I am facing the dilemma where I am in charge of arranging the launch of a new product into the highly competitive "healthy" snack market. I have to decide whether to send or delay this product launching due to some health side effects and safety concerns. On the other hand there is another company who is our leading competitor that is also in the process of launching similar product. Just before I am about to launch the new product, I was informed by reliable lab 's research that the product could cause moderate to severe dizziness and diarrhea in a small group of individuals. However, any allegation of negative effects is unfounded and the research from my own in-house lab
Levin argues that torture should be used on terrorist in order to save people from terrorism. He further implies that this is the morally correct thing to do, because it ensures the good of the people. While his argument would be plausible in a utilitarian society, it is formidable within the cultural ideals of America as democratic societies typically tend to obscure techniques that violate natural rights and or ethics. Hence, Levin works excessively in order to convince his audience of his position. He uses three extreme, hypothetical examples in which torture may be necessary. One being a situation with a terrorist on Manhattan Island plotting to detonate a bomb on July fourth, another being a bomber on a jet plane wanting his demands to be met, and the last, a polled scenario where a terrorist group kidnapped newborn infants from a hospital. He also states that torture should not be punishment for an attack, but rather means of preventing one from happening. He then states that there must be “clear guilt” in order for someone to torture for these purposes. Finally, he addresses that the implications that accepting torture into western culture will emit to the rest of the world are nonexistent and the democracy will not lose its way.
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 best moral theory that supports my arguments is Utilitarianism. To choose the greater good based on everyone. In this situation the best decision would be is to torture the child to stop the terrorist. Because, the greater good is to save the millions of lives that are at risk due to the nuclear bomb.
Torture is the act of inflicting severe physical or psychological pain, and/or injury to a person (or animal) usually to one who is physically restrained and is unable to defend against what is being done to them. It has ancient origins and still continues today. The torture debate is a controversial subject to modern society. Because it is such a complex subject, many debatable issues come from it. For example, many have debated whether torture is effective in obtaining the truth, affects the torturers, threatens the international standing of the United States, or undermines justice. Others include what qualifies as torture, or whether or not the United States should set an example by not torturing. The two opposing claims to this topic would be: (a) that torture should always be illegal because it is immoral and cruel and goes against the international treaties signed by the U.S. and torture and inhuman treatment, and (b) yes, torture is acceptable when needed. Why not do to terrorists what they are so good at doing to so many others?
There are always many ethical issues on hands for any business organization. The list id so long and complicated that one can never solve it in a way that everyone can be happy. Because of that, most of the ethical issues in the business world are solved in a manners that both affected parties can have win-win situation. In this paper, we will be discussing a case in which we will focus on how conducting a personal business at work while using corporate asses for personal use affects the moral behavior in any organization.
One of Kant’s lasting contributions to moral philosophy was his emphasis on the notion of respect for persons. He considers respect for persons (a.k.a the Kantian respect) to be the fundamental moral principle of ethical philosophy. His Kantianism premise is a deontological moral theory which claims that the right action in any given situation is determined by the categorical imperative, which he calls the Supreme Principle. This imperative is a command that applies to all rational beings independent of their desires. It is a command that reason tells us to follow no matter what (P.31).” Kant considers this an objective law of reason and because it applies to all of us, he calls it a universal practical law for all rational beings. The hypothetical imperative, on the contrary, is a conditional command, which “we have reason to follow if (it) serve(s) some desire of ours (P.31).” For example, if you want X, then you will do Y, whereas with the categorical imperative, X has nothing to do with why you do Y.
Torture can prevent the attacks resulting in terror or can go and prove no one, no one can infringe the right of Americans in the result of another attack, and therefore torture is justifiable. The similarities between ISIS and Al Qaeda is scary and torture needs to be in the back pocket of all officials to prevent similar disasters. The clock stopped ticking on 9-11, and anyone on the street can tell oneself where they were the minute they heard. The use of torture could save the lives of thousands, send the message that America is in charge, and can become more commonly accepted in the eyes of disaster. A ticking bomb could be going off at any time, it could destroy a spouse, a son, a daughter, a friend, a neighbor, or maybe the threat is to oneself, torture could get the information to destroy the bomb before it destroys one’s life. Torture is justifiable.
The moral issue of torture is one that has come under scrutiny by many national and international organizations as of late. To talk about torture one must really understand what torture is. As taken from Dictionary.com “1.a. Infliction or severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. 2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony. 3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.” This is just the literal meaning of the word but doesn’t entail the great horror that usually accompanies torture. As stated in the “Ticking Bomb” example given on the instruction sheets, “The interrogation won’t be pretty, and the prisoner may never recover. Shall we do whatever is necessary?” On what moral level is bringing a human being to humiliation, unbearable physical and mental abuse, and most of the time an ultimate end ever an acceptable practice? Torture should be as unthinkable as slavery. In principle it is: since World War II, governments the world over have agreed to ban torture without exception, even when at war or facing acts of terrorism. International treaties banning torture and other, inhuman, and degrading practices are among the most widely ratified treaties in existence. It is not just the United States that endorses these practices; it is over 150 counties according to the United Nations expert on torture Theo van Boven. Since the United States has gone to “war on terror” in Afghanistan, the president and other top officials seem to think that we are not actually “at war” rather these detainees are outside the realm of prisoners of war (POW) status and they don’t have rights under the Geneva Conventions. Now governments are returning alleged terrorists or national security suspects to countries where they are at risk of torture or ill treatment. This is just a reminder as to why the U.S. did not join the International Criminal Court because they have the “bad man” mindset knowing that they will or already use these tactics. There are many reasons as to why torture is immoral and three of these such reasons are; torture is an unreliable source of information and can work against a government, torture is illegal under most every nations’ laws, and torture is just plain immoral and that is the reason it is illegal.
As we analyze this scenario through the eyes of Kantian Deontology, it is imperative that we recognize that, for our purposes, the lives of the civilians in question are irrelevant. This is because, as stated earlier, the consequences of one’s actions are meaningless; it is only the intent and will that truly matter in deciding an actions morality. We are only concerned with discerning the moral nature of torture itself. By removing the possibility of a terrible outcome, Kant leads us to a clear verdict on torture. In response to the first question that Kantian’s must ask themselves, it appears that torture fails. Torture is certainly not a maxim that many would want to will into the natural law. The second formulation of the categorical imperative, the basis of the second question that Kantian’s need to consider, is where torturing for information is declared absolutely impermissible. By torturing someone for information, specifically the location of several bombs, we are disregarding their rational autonomy by using them merely as a means only (Reitan). There is one scenario where the torture of the criminal could be considered morally acceptable. This is supported by Kant’s stance on capital punishment. Some may find this surprising, but Immanuel Kant was a
Everyone in this world has experienced an ethical dilemma in different situations and this may arise between one or more individuals. Ethical dilemma is a situation where people have to make complex decisions and are influenced based on personal interest, social environment or norms, and religious beliefs (“Strategic Leadership”, n.d.). The leaders and managers in the company should set guidelines to ensure employees are aware and have a better chance to solve and make ethical decisions. Employees are also responsible in understanding their ethical obligations in order to maintain a positive work environment. The purpose of this case study is to identify the dilemma and analyze different decisions to find ways on how a person should act
An ethical dilemma is only examined in a situation which has the following conditions; the first condition takes place in a situation, when an individual has to make a decision on which course of action is best. The second condition is there must be more than one course of action to choose from. The third action is no matter what course of action is taken, certain ethical principles are conceded. In other terms, there is no perfect result. When defining what forms an ethical dilemma, it is important to make a division between ethics, morals, values, laws and policies.