Justice for the Unjust
“Every craft and every line of inquiry, and likewise every action and decision, seems to seek some good; that is why some people were right to describe the good as what everything seeks” (1094a1-2). Aristotle believes that the ultimate goal, that which all other ends point to, is achieving the common good through Eudaimonia. Eudaimonia, complete human fulfillment, flows from a city that is in a constant state of virtue. Aristotle says that "virtue is the same as justice" (1130a12), therefore, Eudaimonia which requires virtue must then require justice. I think that Aristotle would view the torture of waterboarding as an act of injustice, therefore he would say this method should not be used upon anyone. Although, I do …show more content…
He recognizes that it is just for legislators to “impose corrective treatments and penalties on anyone who does vicious actions” (1113b24-25), torture for the sake of gaining information is not a penalty or a corrective treatment. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the end or purpose of waterboarding the leaders of al Qaeda was to best understand “[how the terrorists’ are taught] to resist interrogations, gather information on the enemy, carry out kidnappings and assassinations, follow security precautions, and organize safe houses and hiding places” (Leopold). Aristotle would say that it is good to protect the city, however, the intention of these ends are not fully aimed at virtue. Understanding how the terrorists learned to resist interrogation would allow U.S. forces to compose a more accurate form of torture geared towards the terrorists. CIAThis does not aim at a virtue, rather Aristotle may even classify this act of finding a more effective form of torture as vicious. As viciousness is always from voluntary action; and voluntary action is caused by the doer, chosen through reasonable deliberation and decided upon in order to achieve the end. If the sole reason for the interrogation was to gain information on possible future terrorist attacks, then the end would be aimed at the good of protecting the city. Similarly, if the end was to discover the reasoning behind the terrorists’ actions, then the end would be the good of corrective punishment. However, neither of these two examples were the ends of this interrogation. Therefore, the action of waterboarding was freely chosen and decided upon as the means for
“Every craft and every line of inquiry, and likewise every action and decision, seems to seek some good; that is why some people were right to describe the good as what everything seeks” (1094a1-2). Aristotle believes that the ultimate goal, that which all other ends point to, is achieving the common good through Eudaimonia. Eudaimonia, complete human fulfillment, flows from a city that is in a constant state of virtue. Aristotle says that "virtue is the same as justice" (1130a12), therefore, Eudaimonia which requires virtue must then require justice. I think that Aristotle would view the torture of waterboarding as an act of injustice, therefore he would say this method should not be used upon anyone. Although, I do …show more content…
He recognizes that it is just for legislators to “impose corrective treatments and penalties on anyone who does vicious actions” (1113b24-25), torture for the sake of gaining information is not a penalty or a corrective treatment. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the end or purpose of waterboarding the leaders of al Qaeda was to best understand “[how the terrorists’ are taught] to resist interrogations, gather information on the enemy, carry out kidnappings and assassinations, follow security precautions, and organize safe houses and hiding places” (Leopold). Aristotle would say that it is good to protect the city, however, the intention of these ends are not fully aimed at virtue. Understanding how the terrorists learned to resist interrogation would allow U.S. forces to compose a more accurate form of torture geared towards the terrorists. CIAThis does not aim at a virtue, rather Aristotle may even classify this act of finding a more effective form of torture as vicious. As viciousness is always from voluntary action; and voluntary action is caused by the doer, chosen through reasonable deliberation and decided upon in order to achieve the end. If the sole reason for the interrogation was to gain information on possible future terrorist attacks, then the end would be aimed at the good of protecting the city. Similarly, if the end was to discover the reasoning behind the terrorists’ actions, then the end would be the good of corrective punishment. However, neither of these two examples were the ends of this interrogation. Therefore, the action of waterboarding was freely chosen and decided upon as the means for