On a daily basis we are inundated with news headlines regarding the War on Terror. The government denies that they are using torture as a means to gain a foothold against these perpetrators whilst also denying that waterboarding is not torture. Both of these non-admissions have opened the doors for people in politics, law and abroad to speak their minds. The following three perspectives are a taste of the philosophical side of the argument. Should it be done or shouldn’t it? I will be comparing and contrasting these three perspectives while using the moral theories of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill.
We first start off with the father and son duo of Charles and Gregory Fried. This situation is unique in the sense that they are not of the …show more content…
In its simplest terms, the idea that it is presumed to be honorable or at least ok in the eyes of society to drop a bomb from half mile up in the sky onto an unsuspecting village inhabited by women and children if there is a chance that Al Qaeda is also living there. While at the same time it is considered unethical by some people to get up close and personal to do the “dirty work” of torture to acquire information that might be valuable and save countless American lives. This “distance” creates a lessening of blame in some people’s minds and ideologies. He goes on to say that there is absolutely no difference among those two actions and as long as the United States wages war in modern society then the use of torture must be an ethical necessity. Kant would vehemently disagree with Sam Harris on both dropping bombs and waterboarding. He would consider both those things to be an abomination to humanity and state the people should never be used as a tool to get to something else. Mill would weigh all of the consequences to find out what would be the necessary evil in this case. Does dropping that bomb save ten or one hundred people? If the answer is yes than the bomb must be dropped. Does waterboarding that suspected terrorist allow the U.S. to gain intel that down the road will save another plane going into a building than the pros far outweigh the cons
We first start off with the father and son duo of Charles and Gregory Fried. This situation is unique in the sense that they are not of the …show more content…
In its simplest terms, the idea that it is presumed to be honorable or at least ok in the eyes of society to drop a bomb from half mile up in the sky onto an unsuspecting village inhabited by women and children if there is a chance that Al Qaeda is also living there. While at the same time it is considered unethical by some people to get up close and personal to do the “dirty work” of torture to acquire information that might be valuable and save countless American lives. This “distance” creates a lessening of blame in some people’s minds and ideologies. He goes on to say that there is absolutely no difference among those two actions and as long as the United States wages war in modern society then the use of torture must be an ethical necessity. Kant would vehemently disagree with Sam Harris on both dropping bombs and waterboarding. He would consider both those things to be an abomination to humanity and state the people should never be used as a tool to get to something else. Mill would weigh all of the consequences to find out what would be the necessary evil in this case. Does dropping that bomb save ten or one hundred people? If the answer is yes than the bomb must be dropped. Does waterboarding that suspected terrorist allow the U.S. to gain intel that down the road will save another plane going into a building than the pros far outweigh the cons