How do you determine if and when the use of torture would be ethical?
Let’s begin by examining the views of two well-known philosophers John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant. Each of these philosophers had strong opinions and stances on the moral and ethical use of torture.
John Stuart Mills’ theory on the ethical of the use of torture is that it is acceptable if it brings happiness and/or pleasure to the majority of people than if the torture were not carried out. One example he gives to support that theory is, if a terrorist has information that will prevent an act of terror that would result in the death of hundreds of innocent people and by obtaining this information thru an act of torture, it would likely save those lives he would agree …show more content…
They illustrate this point when they state in the transcript “the difference is that decent, civilized human beings will not under any circumstances torture or order torture”. (Cite this)
In the Alan Dershowitzs’ transcript Rules should Govern Torture he states an opposing view that torture is an inevitability of today’s world. In his opinion torture is never acceptable. However, he believes that torture will always be used, but no one will admit to committing it. Therefore, he stated it should be governed by the law and sanctioned by the President of the United States and Congress.
If it is governed by the law, then whoever carries out the act of torture needs to be held accountable.
Let’s compare each of the different viewpoints. We’ll start by comparing John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant, Mill would support an act of torture if it would bring happiness to the majority of people that would be impacted if it were carried out and saved lives. Whereas Kant’s view on torture is more rigid, his belief emphasized the importance of basing any act of torture on the morality of it. He would say the decision to commit an act of torture should be made without emotion and with moral
Let’s begin by examining the views of two well-known philosophers John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant. Each of these philosophers had strong opinions and stances on the moral and ethical use of torture.
John Stuart Mills’ theory on the ethical of the use of torture is that it is acceptable if it brings happiness and/or pleasure to the majority of people than if the torture were not carried out. One example he gives to support that theory is, if a terrorist has information that will prevent an act of terror that would result in the death of hundreds of innocent people and by obtaining this information thru an act of torture, it would likely save those lives he would agree …show more content…
They illustrate this point when they state in the transcript “the difference is that decent, civilized human beings will not under any circumstances torture or order torture”. (Cite this)
In the Alan Dershowitzs’ transcript Rules should Govern Torture he states an opposing view that torture is an inevitability of today’s world. In his opinion torture is never acceptable. However, he believes that torture will always be used, but no one will admit to committing it. Therefore, he stated it should be governed by the law and sanctioned by the President of the United States and Congress.
If it is governed by the law, then whoever carries out the act of torture needs to be held accountable.
Let’s compare each of the different viewpoints. We’ll start by comparing John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant, Mill would support an act of torture if it would bring happiness to the majority of people that would be impacted if it were carried out and saved lives. Whereas Kant’s view on torture is more rigid, his belief emphasized the importance of basing any act of torture on the morality of it. He would say the decision to commit an act of torture should be made without emotion and with moral