The subject of the use of torture to extract information in a military setting is something that has caused a large amount of controversy. First, we will explore my personal opinions as to the morality of torturing the solider and his children in this situation. Then to get a deeper understanding of the issue from a true moral theorist’s perspective, we will discuss aspects of both Kantian and Utilitarian theories as to why torture is morally wrong. To get a deeper understanding of this situation in the eyes of true moral theories, we will explore arguments of both Utilitarian and Kantian moral theories as to why torture is morally wrong.
Putting myself in the position of an army officer who has captured an enemy soldier that knows the location of a time bomb is extremely difficult. For most, in their mind it would be morally permissible to torture …show more content…
One form of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism, would support the use of torture in this situation. This theory states that if an act of “evil” is morally permissible if the means justify the ends. In this situation, the result of torturing the soldier and/or his children would be saving thousands of lives, making it a morally permissible decision. However, rule utilitarianism could be used as an argument that torture is not moral. According to Pojman 1986, rule utilitarianism states, “an act is right if it conforms to a valid rule within a system of rules that, if followed, will result in the best possible state affairs,” (p.112). This means that if the rule you are following when you make a decision maximizes happiness then it is morally permissible. Torturing people to gain information that you need would not be morally permissible if it was generally practiced. Therefore it would not be morally permissible to torture the soldier and his children in order to gain information regarding the location of the
Putting myself in the position of an army officer who has captured an enemy soldier that knows the location of a time bomb is extremely difficult. For most, in their mind it would be morally permissible to torture …show more content…
One form of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism, would support the use of torture in this situation. This theory states that if an act of “evil” is morally permissible if the means justify the ends. In this situation, the result of torturing the soldier and/or his children would be saving thousands of lives, making it a morally permissible decision. However, rule utilitarianism could be used as an argument that torture is not moral. According to Pojman 1986, rule utilitarianism states, “an act is right if it conforms to a valid rule within a system of rules that, if followed, will result in the best possible state affairs,” (p.112). This means that if the rule you are following when you make a decision maximizes happiness then it is morally permissible. Torturing people to gain information that you need would not be morally permissible if it was generally practiced. Therefore it would not be morally permissible to torture the soldier and his children in order to gain information regarding the location of the