Torture has become a mainstream topic when discussing how to handle the treatment and questioning of a terrorist. Is it ethically right to use torture to obtain information from a suspected terrorist? If American lives were at stake of a major attack and the terrorist had the potential information to thwart the attack, would it be justified to torture the terrorist for the information? In order to fully take a look at this question, it can be approached through the different theories of ethics which is addressed in Arthur F. Holmes’ book, Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions. Holmes writes about four different types of ethics which are utilitarianism, Kantian duty-based ethics, virtue ethics, and Christian-principle based ethics.
Most of the cases of regulation that he examines display what Thomas Grey of Stanford calls “practical neutrality,” or an intervention of regulation meant to protect individuals from illocutionary speech acts that can incite violence against them or psychological harm that may be incurred because it is intrinsically the right thing to do (305). This kind of regulation has ties to moral and political values, therefore from a liberal standpoint is unacceptable regulation. Altman agrees that hate speech can cause serious psychological damage to those who are victim to it, but maintains that it is not reason enough to regulate hate speech. Instead, he says that the wrong involved in hate speech is the act of treating another individual as a moral subordinate. The interests of these individuals as well as the value of their life are viewed as being inherently less important than the interests and lives of the reference group.
Mill is discussed how society will judge even if the person is only doing harm to him or herself and wi... ... middle of paper ... ...ered enough, which is a huge objection to Mill’s argument. In conclusion, On Liberty, chapter four by J.S. Mill focuses on how each member of society should not harm others and how everyone is obligated to keep society safe maintaining a balance. In this chapter Mill reviews his ideas surrounding the “harm principle” and holding individuals accountable for their actions to others. He also argues in this chapter that society has the right to punish individuals who harm other members in society.
An Exposition of Kant’s, Arendt’s, and Mill’s Moral Philosophy Immanuel Kant adheres to Deontological ethics. His theory offers a view of morality based on the principle of good will and duty. According to him, people can perform good actions solely by good intentions without any considerations to consequences. In addition, one must follow the laws and the categorical imperative in order to act in accordance with and from duty. Several other philosophers such as Hannah Arendt discuss Kant’s moral philosophy.
Therefore, the pain of thousands of people (and their subsequent pleasures) would greatly outweigh the pain of one man which makes the torture of the imprisoned terrorist nearly obligatory. A Kantian duty-based ethic would answer the question of torture in a very different way than utilitarianism. A Kantian duty-based ethic is not concerned with the outcome or consequences of the action, only that the action itself is an “act out of regard for duty and respect for moral law.” (Holmes, 2007, p. 62). Se... ... middle of paper ... ... of innocent people on their hands. Unless in the most extreme cases, I think that torture should be both morally and legally wrong.
(Foot 1972: 311). Morality and its standards are often assumed to be 'intrinsically' motivating, and this is how they regulate society's behaviour. (Prinz in Batson 2011:41). Yet Batson suggests rather than intrinsically motivating, we conform to the principles to avoid social and self-rewards, where we are viewed as morally good. Morality for Kant is determined by whether certain moral actions could be turned into a universal maxim.
Immanuel Kant's Theory Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) discussed many ethical systems and reasoning’s some were based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality. In Kant’s eyes, reason is directly correlated with morals and ideals. Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for appropriateness or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. A moral act is an act done for the "right" reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the wrong reason is not moral you might as well not make the promise.
Terrorism can be broken down into five main categories; Revolutionary, Political, Nationalistic, Nonpolitical, and State-Sponsored. "Revolutionary terrorists use violence as a tool to invoke fear in those in power and their supporters. "(2) The goal for these terrorists is to implicate a government that would be more compliant to their needs. By using methods such as kidnapping, assassination, and bombing, revolutionary terrorists hope to provoke in... ... middle of paper ... ...rrorism of genocide. Although the definition of terrorism is hard to pinpoint, I have outlined a general working definition for the purposes of the essay.
Telling a lie to the murderer to send him astray would save a life, and consequently would be a moral action. Utilitarianism would take into account the future repercussions caused by the lie, but the analysis of an action still lies in the foreseen or predicted consequences rather than on the action’s intrinsic moral value. Morality then, would be judged on a case by case basis. Kant’s perspective refutes this by saying morality loses its value as a universal quality. Although situations change, the basis for acting (morality) must stay the same and actions are moral or immoral, regardless of any immediate consequences.
Elizabeth Arruda Dr. Lois Eveleth Philosophy 25 April 2014 Immanuel Kant: Categorical Imperative and Ethical Deliberation Immanuel Kant’s ethical theory is referred to as deontology, which is where one acts according to one’s principle. He believes that the will has ethical priority over the body and soul. The only way a will is a good will is to the extent that the person acts from a sense of duty and functions with reason. By determining what is good, Kant uses categorical imperative in order to help in ethical deliberation. The human being is seen as 2 dimensional which includes the body and soul.