Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What ethics means
Religion and ethics relationship
What ethics means
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: What ethics means
When you ask your friend what ethics means to them you may get a different answer. You may hear responses that reference religion, laws or whatever feels morally right. The framework for ethics suggest that feelings, religion, law, science, and cultural influences should not be considered when determining if what your about to do is ethical. Here is what you do consider ethical reasoning,
• Utilitarian, do the most good or the least amount of harm.
• Rights, treat people with dignity and not a means to an ends, if you can’t treat everyone ethically then it should be fair.
• Common Good, create strong relationships to build a community that works together for a common good.
• Virtue, values such as self control, compassion, love, and
…show more content…
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? Would they support an argument on reasonable torture? They believe that honoring yourself and your dignity can be done by maintaining someone else’s.
Given an example of a ticking time bomb they would rather allow loss of life of men, women, and children to a terrorist bomb than perform water boarding they chose loss of life. The reason because it will dishonor me, you the person inflicting the torture. In today’s world we are no safer than ten years ago and I suspect it will not change in the next ten years. Kant would say if it’s wrong don’t do it. Mill would say if there’s a greater good, it must be done. Charles and Gregory are following duty based ethics, which is supported by Immanuel
The ticking bomb example is frequently used to justify the use for torture while its terms can be taken either as setting the bar too high to justify any actual torture or alternatively as opening the door to torture in other cases.
Alan Dershowitz challenges the legitimization of non-lethal torture in his essay, “Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist be tortured?” He claims that torture should indeed be legitimized for specific scenarios that require such action. The ticking bomb terrorist gives the example of a terrorist withholding time-sensitive information that could result in the death of innocent citizens, if not shared. Not only does Dershowitz challenge the idea of torture, but he also gives a probable solution that favors the legitimization the torture. He mentions three values that would have to be complied with by all three branches of government if it were to be legitimated, which Dershowitz does endorse. The arguments of the two perspectives discussed in the
Torture is one of the most extreme methods of eliciting information; unfortunately, it has been used for centuries and is still prevalent worldwide.
Another reason why some utilitarian thinkers will support torturing these suspect terrorist because law enforcement is saving American lives. On the other hand, other utilitarian thinks will condemn torturing terrorist because affects a personal moral standards to conduct themselves as a productive citizen (“The ‘ticking time bomb’ problem,” 2014). An additional reason why some utilitarian thinks condemn torturing terrorist because it provokes intense psychological pressure to reveal answers that law enforcement may want to hear that’s incorrect. Furthermore, depending on which utilitarian thinker discussing the use of torturing a terrorist, the action could be justified because it prevents further or future injury. Additionally, other utilitarian thinkers would rebuke this action because hurting another doesn’t help people that have already been injured by a terrorist
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”.
Whether it’s to stop an imminent threat or as a form of response to fear and discrimination, it is common for states to turn towards torture as a mean of attaining information from someone. Torture has been used since the beginning of states and it is still used in some today. The Romans used torture on its citizens who were suspected of crimes, especially violent crimes. The world used torture as a means of acquiring a confession. The Russian Tsars would use torture in order to extract confessions. Ivan the terrible would torture his subjects for amusement, and Peter the great became paranoid that his own son was planning treason and had him tortured and executed. The Nazis tortured Jews in concentration camps and even tortured and killed
Torture: the action or practice of inflicting severe pain for punishment or to force them to say or do something (Oxford Dictionary). Torture can be mental or physical , but is it alright to use torture at all or is it inhumane? If a terrorist knew where the bombs placed throughout America were located. This man is refusing to give any information to any of the interrogation techniques. Just hours away there will be an explosion killing millions of people throughout America alone. Every detective working (secretly) on this case has tried every interrogation technique they were ever taught, even some they made up their self. Although there is one that they have not done. Would torture save the lives of millions of innocent men, women and children? This essay is going to state the reasons why torture should be acceptable in certain situations.
Consequentialism and deontology are two different theories concerning with morality. Consequentialism believes in the concept of the end justifies the means. On the other hand, deontology does not believe in the concept of the ends justifies the means. It believes that right actions are defined by duty. Deontology is the opposite of consequentialism when it comes to moral ethics, making it the better approach.
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?
Utilitarianism states that if the torture of one person means that the collective good or happiness is increased, and then torture is justifiable. However from an utilitarian point of view, torture may not always be permissible, as a rule utilitarian would only act if that it follows a rule that will bring the greatest good and torture cannot be that rule however torture under extreme circumstances is an example of these rules.
Applebaum believes that torture should not be used as a means of gaining information from suspects. Applebaum's opinion is supported through details that the practice has not been proven optimally successful. After debating the topic, I have deliberated on agreeing with Applebaum's stance towards the torture policy. I personally agree with the thought to discontinue the practice of torture as a means of acquiring intel. I find it unacceptable that under the Bush Administration, the President decided prisoners to be considered exceptions to the Geneva Convention. As far as moral and ethical consideration, I do not believe that it is anyone's right to harm anyone else, especially if the tactic is not proven successful. After concluding an interview with Academic, Darius Rejali, Applebaum inserted that he had “recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway.” There are alternative...
criminals to be tortured to death by burning them alive”(SOURCE 1). Some of the things
Application of the ACHE code of ethics to this sort of issue can be discussed under the following heads:
“The Case for Torture” by Michael Levin introduces the topic of torture as an acceptable measure for preventing future evil. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, torture is the act or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment that forces them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain. Victims may be tortured for various reasons, such as for the tormentor’s own pleasure, a motive for revenge, or the need to obtain answers. At some point in life, everyone has thoughts of torturing another individual, especially when experiencing traumatic events or simply seeking for revenge. Stanley Milgram’s Shock Experiment, the Iraqi Prisoner, and Philip
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...