Morally Permissible To Torture A Child Essay

Introduction

The topic that covers this essay:: is it morally permissible to torture an innocent child to stop a nuclear threat. I shall defend by stating that it is morally permissible to torture an innocent child by arguing, first, that by torturing a child one can save millions of lives, and secondly that if we torture the child we will be just harming him, not killing him. First I will depict the three approaches to morality presented in this course (Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics and Kant’s). Then I’ll present my own stand and try to support my reasoning with the three moral approaches if possible. Then I’ll continue with a counter argument followed by a conclusion.

Thesis Statement

I shall defend by stating that it is morally permissible

Arguments

I chose to torture the child, because I believe that it’s better to torture one child and save millions of lives. Instead of not torturing one child and the result being the death of millions.

My second arguments is that we’re just only torturing the child, not torturing the child to death. I believe it’s the necessary consequence to save many lives. Mostly because the biggest concern the child would have to deal with is PTSD or some sort of trauma. Instead of resulting in millions of deaths, it’s better for one child to endure trauma instead of millions dying and more in life-long pain.

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.

Counter-

In his second imperative he stated that we have to “always treat rational beings as an end and never as a means only” (Vaughn, p.114). Of course they’re true, in this situation we would be using the child as means to an end. Since we’re torturing him to locate the terrorist. However I can also argue that this is where Kant’s theory is too absolute. In this situation would you save millions of lives by torturing one child or be the reason why millions and many more had to die because you couldn’t torture one