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
Michael Levin's article on "The Case for Torture." is an article which mainly discusess the use
Utilitarianism is a concept formatted in a book by John Stuart Mill that welcomes the idea of utility in everyday life, while focusing on how to achieve complete happiness in the lives of humans. Nature automatically guides the living creatures of this toward always pursuing pleasure and to avoid pain, and this reigns true in lives of humans as people strive for greatness and in animals as survival is a pleasure for them. It is clear that in life, some pleasures are not worth the action and some pains should be
The notion that fear will make a human leak information is not a novel idea. Torture has widely been used throughout the world by many groups of people. After World War II, The Geneva Convention prohibited any nation from partaking in torture. The emergence of terrorist activity on American soil brought up the question whether torture should be advocated or prohibited from a moral standpoint. The US changed the definition of torture in order to forcibly attain potentially important information from captives. Even though the new clause suggested that many of the methods the US used were now legal, other countries still had an issue in terms of honoring the Geneva Convention and basic human rights. Advocates for torture promise that countless innocent lives can be saved from the information obtained from a single torture victim. Opponents to the advocates suggest that torture often results in misleading information. Morally, torture is not justified as it degrades humans and often leaves victims scarred for life and possibly dead.
Immanuel Kant Versus John Stuart Mill Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill; two opposing philosophers of their time. Even though they were living in different countries, their works have been against each other. In his book, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant argues that there is nothing better than wanting goodwill by itself. He emphasizes the importance of goodwill over and over again and tries to show how effective moral philosophy can be if goodwill is used as the key element. Therefore, for Kant, the sole foundation of philosophy rests on goodwill.
Torture is one of the most extreme methods of eliciting information; unfortunately, it has been used for centuries and is still prevalent worldwide.
Mill made a distinction between happiness and sheer sensual pleasure. He defines happiness in terms of higher order pleasure (i.e. social enjoyments, intellectual). In his Utilitarianism (1861), Mill described this principle as follows:According to the Greatest Happiness Principle … The ultimate end, end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible enjoyments.Therefore, based on this statement, three ideas may be identified: (1) The goodness of an act may be determined by the consequences of that act. (2) Consequences are determined by the amount of happiness or unhappiness caused. (3) A "good" man is one who considers the other man's pleasure (or pain) as equally as his own.
Torture may be an inhumane way to get the information needed to keep the citizens of the United States safe from the attacks that are threatened against them, but there is rarely a course of action that will ensure the safety of a nation’s citizens that doesn’t compromise the safety of another group of people. Nevertheless, we must conserve as much humanity as possible by looking at the situation we are in and ensure that we are approaching the torture in an ethical manner. Although torture is valid on moral grounds, there are many who oppose it, such as Jamie Mayerfeld as he states in his 2009 article “In Defense of the Absolute Prohibition of Torture”.
As Shunzo Majima describes it: “According to Kantian deontology, torture cannot be morally justified if an individual’s humanity and dignity are denied through torture and the torture victim is used merely as a means for achieving the purpose of torture” (Majima, 2012, p. 138). Because of the way torture gravely violates a person’s autonomy and treats them only as a means of getting information or for some other end, it is considered inherently wrong in the eyes of deontology. People who are tortured are no longer seen as human or respected as one; instead, they are seen only as tools that can be manipulated and used in order to achieve a certain result. This, to deontology, is morally
Torture, the most extreme form of human violence, resulting in both physical and psychological consequences. A technique of interrogation that has been proven time and time again to not only be ineffective but also a waste of time. Studies have shown that not only does torture psychologically damage the mind of the victim, but also can hurt the inflictor. If there is proof that torture is useless, why do we still use it? Torture should not be used to get information out of prisoners because of the risk of false information, enemy resistance and utter uselessness.
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?
Until there is a credible way to determine whether or not torture is in fact effective, I pass judgment that the practice should be discontinued. The question as to if the torture policy is a human rights violation or if it holds crucial necessity, is not answered in the essay. Applebaum explores the reality that torture possesses negative implications on the inflictor. After presented with the compelling stance and evidence, Applebaum raises the interesting question as to why so much of society believes that torture is successful. I agree that the torture policy is wrong, a point emphasized by Applebaum, contrary to the popular attitude surrounding the topic.
... in World War II led to the creation of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention. Both prohibited and made torture illegal (Woodard). But torture does not stop there. Torture is just as present in today’s world as it was decades ago. Recently, pro-Ukraine citizens have been abducted and tortured for supporting their country. Pro-Russians obviously do not agree with them and torture seems as if it is the best way to deal with them(Bigg). From ancient times to 2014, torture is used to punish people for either breaking the law or simply not conforming to other peoples’ beliefs. Sure it seems as if our world today is completely different, which it is, but that is just the physical look of it. The people in society haven’t changed. They still have their cruel, cold hearts. And that is not going to change anytime soon.
John Stuart Mill claims that people often misinterpret utility as the test for right and wrong. This definition of utility restricts the term and denounces its meaning to being opposed to pleasure. Mill defines utility as units of happiness caused by an action without the unhappiness caused by an action. He calls this the Greatest Happiness Principle or the Principle of Utility. Mill’s principle states that actions are right when they tend to promote happiness and are wrong when they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness is defined as intended pleasure and the absence of pain while unhappiness is defined as pain and the lack of pleasure. Therefore, Mill claims, pleasure and happiness are the only things desirable and good. Mill’s definition of utilitarianism claims that act...
In his essay “The Case for Torture,” printed in The Norton Reader 13th Edition, Michael Levin argues that torture is justified and necessary under extreme circumstance. He believes that if a person accepts torture to be justified under extreme cases, then the person automatically accepts torture. Levin presents weak argument and he mostly relies on hypothetical scenarios. There is not concrete evidence that torture solves problems and stop crime but rather the contrary. Under international law, torture is illegal and all the United Nation members have to abide by those rules. The use of torture does not keep people safe, but rather the opposite. Torture has a profound effect on democracy. As the use of torture becomes normal in society, the right of the citizen will suffer greatly.
On the opposite side, there are people very much in favor of the use of torture. To them, torture is a “morally defensible” interrogation method (8). The most widely used reason for torture is when many lives are in imminent danger. This means that any forms of causing harm are acceptable. This may seem reasonable, as you sacrifice one life to save way more, but it’s demoralizing. The arguments that justify torture usually are way too extreme to happen in the real world. The golden rule also plays a big rol...