In respect to the rights ethical framework, “people are not objects to be manipulated; it is a violation of human dignity to use people in ways they do not freely choose” (Andre 2014). It treats the victim as a “thing”, not as a person with all the value that we associate with an individual. The tactics used are inhuman and should not be subjected on anyone. The physical and psychological damage it causes is often permanent. Even if it were effective, it would still be wrong.
People may try to justify its use by claiming it can be used to gain critical information or in similar situations; this is a feeble attempt to use possible results in order to justify the terrible use of torture as a means of getting there. To deontology, torture is morally wrong, and more than that, it is always morally wrong. There is no situation in which torture should be used, period. The way torture grossly outstrips people’s human autonomy and right to be treated as ends in themselves makes it a moral evil in the eyes of deontology. In addition, torture’s maxim of allowing for one person to harm another for gain is also not universalizable, making it an even more morally corrupt action.
They present an idea directly stating torture is inhuman and not moral but indirectly because its illegal. When asked about the difference between illegal torture and illegal snooping they are clear to state that civilized people will not torture. When it comes to snooping, legal snooping exists which means you can have reasonable snooping. Torture is illegal and never ok under any circumstance. Does this mean if torture was legal, it would be ok?
Unfortunately, tolerance is not a requirement within the framework of subjective morality, and its avocation is inconsistent with relativism itself. In fact, to require tolerance is a fundamentally intolerant act, projecting an obvious prejudice against the person whose subjective moral framework allows for vocalized bigotry. Philosopher Lewis Vaughn highlights this contradiction, commenting, “To advocate tolerance is to advocate an objective moral value. But if tolerance is an objective moral value, then cultural relativism must be false, because it says that there are no objective moral values.” Therefore, relativism—and by extension, the notion of subjective morality—is inherently contradictory, thus proving completely irrational under
In this essay, my goal is to convey the principle that cheating is unethical according to virtue, deontological, consequential/utilitarianism ethics and moral relativism. Moreover, I will explain why everyone should agree that cheating is a detrimental action that should not be encouraged. In order to achieve this lofty goal, my paper has been arranged int... ... middle of paper ... ...erent basis, each basis depends on rational decision-making skills. Those who do not employ rationality should not be applauded for using underhanded methods for personal success and although a group may unify in irrationality, if you maintain your morality you will always prevail. Works Cited Gowans, Chris.
My claim that we have evil in this world because of our libertarian freedom does not fully answer the notion of “the problem of evil”. Saying we have evil in this world is just like saying we have bad decisions in this world. Bad decisions just like evil do not have a form. Every decision that God makes is a good decision therefore God cannot do evil. Human beings initiated evil.
Torture inherent nature of pain would lead people to avoid it; consequently, the average person would not want it done to them. Therefore, torture cannot be broken down into situational bouts of ethical and unethical situations. Meaning that it is always unethical and humans have a duty not to torture their fellow human.
Torture, therefore, is not acceptable in any case of punishment and should not be used. It is important to assign punishments in proportion to the crime committed. Immanuel Kant comments upon this in his work, The Retributive Theory of Punishment, professing that the mode of measuring punishment is based on “the principle of equality, by which the pointer of the scale... ... middle of paper ... ...alty, but the process leading up to it makes it a torturous and unjust form of punishment. Therefore, capital punishment is not a morally permissible practice and should be abolished. Works Cited Johnson, Robert.
Those who steal are not punished by being stolen from. We should not, therefore, punish the murderer with death... Capital Punishment is a barbaric remainder of an uncivilized society." (Should the Death Penalty n. pag.) A society that respects life should not also be the one who is taking it.
In societies where torture is morally permissible, there is always the threat to moral values, and no value, however small, can be said to be secure within such a sphere. Moral discourse and torture are not mutually exclusive. Torture or any act which involves treating an individual as a mere means is absolutely wrong and cannot be justified morally. No form of punishment can be exclud...