Philosophy of Torture and Utilitarian Ethics

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Exposition
The use of Kantian ethics
Assessment
Works Cited

Introduction

Utilitarian ethics is often applied by policy-makers when they need to address a complex ethical problem. Nevertheless, this framework cannot give a definitive answer to the dilemma described in this case, because it is extremely difficult to identify the consequences of a choice that a person has to take. An individual, who resorts to torture in order to save the lives of other people, cannot estimate the long-term effects of this action on the welfare of the community. Under these circumstances, one cannot tell how exactly this behavior can influence the general utility.

Therefore, there are no valid criteria according to which the morality can be evaluated. This is one of the limitations that should not be disregarded by the CIA agent mentioned in this case.

On the whole, the use of utilitarian approach is not quite suitable for addressing this ethical problem. In contrast, Kantian ethical framework is more likely to give a consistent answer that is based on the so-called Formula of Humanity. This is the main thesis that should be discussed in greater detail. To a great extent, this discussion can be important for understanding the complexity of ethical problems which require a person to commit the acts of violence against innocent people.

Exposition

This scenario illustrates one of the most complex dilemmas that CIA officers may need to resolve. In particular, a person has to decide whether it is permissible to torture the children of a terrorist in order to obtain valuable information that can potentially save the lives of many people.

The CIA agent knows that the captured mastermind of a terrorist group has several accomplices who may carry out several deadly attacks. In turn, one of his colleagues mentions that the suspect has two children, and they can be tortured. In his opinion, this action can force this person to disclose the names of his accomplices. Thus, a person may have to take the action that can completely undermine his/her ethical integrity. So, it is important to apply different ethical frameworks such as utilitarianism and Kantian ethics in order to find possible solutions to this problem.

The supporter of the utilitarian ethics will try to focus on the effects of such action on the welfare of the community. In particular, this person will apply the so-called general utility principle according to which a certain action is right if it maximizes overall happiness (West 146). It should be noted that in this context, the word happiness can also be defined as freedom from pain. Apart from that, utilitarian ethics imply that certain rights of people can be overridden in some exceptional cases. For example, one can speak about the need to save thousands of people.

This is the line of reasoning that the supporter of utilitarian ethics may follow. The main argument in favor of this action is that the information provided by the suspect may critical for saving the lives of many people. Therefore, the community will become much safer. This is the main positive outcome that be singled out. Apart from that, one should bear in mind that in this way, a CIA agent can preserve many families and shield them from both physical and emotional suffering. In turn, if CIA agents take no action, they may unwillingly condemn many innocent individuals to death.

If a person chooses to focus on this outcome, he/she may come to the conclusion that the torture of children can justified. However, this argument is relevant if one concentrates only on the most immediate effects of this action. This is one of the limitations that should not be overlooked. Furthermore, the use of utilitarian ethics can yield a dramatically different answer, and one should examine it in greater detail, since this analysis is important for understanding the complexity of this case.

Under these circumstances, the CIA agent may focus on the negative effects of torture. In particular, by legitimizing the use of torture, especially under such circumstances, law-enforcement agencies may eventually become comparable to terrorist organizations because they will use very similar methods in order to achieve their goals. Provided that the use of torture is accepted as a necessity that can be justified from an ethical viewpoint, the residents of the community will eventually feel insecure.

More importantly, they will eventually perceive governmental institutions as a major threat because many of them may become potential suspects. This is one of the main adverse effects that should be taken into account by a person who has to encounter this ethical dilemma. This argument is particularly relevant if a person focuses on the long-term consequences of this action. Apart from that, one should also discuss the idea that the actions of a person can be based on false premises that eventually lead to disastrous effects.

In this case, it is critical to remember that there is always a risk of mistake which can lead to the imprisonment and torture of an innocent person; moreover, the use of torture is not always useful for obtaining valuable information. In many cases, agencies fighting against terrorism prefer to arrest a person or even torture him/her, even if there is no compelling evidence indicating that this individual cooperates with a terrorist organization. This issue is described by Ron Suskind in his book The One Percent Doctrine.

One of the problems is that the use of torture may not provide valuable information and the suspicions of the CIA agents can be wrong (Suskind 11). This is one of the risks that a person should take into consideration. Additionally, a potential suspect can simply incriminate innocent people in order to protect his/her relatives from harm. Apart from that, this individual may simply refuse to disclose the names of his accomplices. The possibility of this response should not be overlooked because people, who are firmly convinced of their rectitude, may stick at nothing in order to achieve a certain objective.

These scenarios should not be dismissed because they indicate that the use of torture does not necessarily yield the expected results. This is one of the pitfalls that the CIA agent should take into account. In particular, the estimations, which are based on the utilitarian approach, can lead to false conclusions. These are some of the dangers that can be identified, and it seems that these considerations should guide the decisions of a person, even if he/she decides to focus on the outcomes of an action, rather than its motives.

In my opinion, utilitarian ethics tells that it is not permissible to torture the relatives of a person who is suspected of terrorism because this action can lead to several adverse effects. In particular, one should speak about the victimization of innocent people who are in no way related to the crimes of any terrorist organization. As it has been said before, such an action can completely undermine credibility and integrity of agencies fighting against terrorism. The problem is that virtually every member of the community can be a potential suspect. Therefore, citizens as well as their relatives can be exposed to the risk of physical violence.

Apart from, governmental institutions can simply use violence against people who criticize the policies of the policies of the state. Therefore, the use of torture should completely be out of the question. This answer can be derived, if a person chooses to look at short-term and long-term effects of a certain action. Admittedly, some of these consequences are not inevitable, and law-enforcement agencies can rely on torture in exceptional cases.

Nevertheless, in this case, even a minor risk should not be overlooked. Again, this situation illustrates that utilitarian ethics cannot give a definitive answer to this dilemma because there are no valid tools for weighting the positive and negative consequences of a certain action. In turn, one should apply the principles advocated by Immanuel Kant.

The use of Kantian ethics

In turn, Kantian ethics can give a more consistent answer this dilemma. This ethical framework implies that it is not permissible to treat other people as a means for achieving certain goals. Immanuel Kant emphasizes the need to respect the moral worth and dignity of every rational individual, regardless of his/her age, gender, religious affliction, nationality, citizenship status, and so forth. This solution is based on the Formula of Humanity according to which a person should be regarded only as an end in oneself (Sussman 47).

Nevertheless, he/she cannot be viewed as a tool for attaining a certain objective, even if a certain task can promote general welfare. So, Kantian ethics can give an unequivocal answer to the dilemma described in the scenario. In turn, the torture of children is totally inadmissible, even if it can promote the general utility. At this point, it is important to compare utilitarian and Kantian approaches.

Assessment

Overall, it is possible to discuss the differences between Kantian and utilitarian approaches to ethics. In particular, according to the principles of utilitarian ethics, it is vital to consider the aftereffects of a certain choice, because they can be viewed as the main criteria according to which the morality of an action should be assessed. In contrast, Kantian approach to morality implies that there are certain imperatives or principles that cannot be violated under any circumstances. Certainly, utilitarian ethics also implies that there are certain rules that should be complied with.

However, the advocates of this framework accept the existence of exceptional cases. Admittedly, Kantian ethics is more rigid, because a person should act only according to a certain pattern. Nevertheless, the use of utilitarian ethics is not permissible in this case, because the consequences of an action can vary dramatically. A decision-maker can at best estimate the short-term effects of an action, but these estimations can be very inaccurate. Additionally, by overlooking potential risks, a person can contribute to a significant social disaster. These are the main arguments that can be put forward.

Works Cited

Suskind, Ron. The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside Americas Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11, New York: Simon and Schuster, 2008. Print.

Sussman, David. The Idea of Humanity: Anthropology and Anthroponomy in Kants Ethics, New York: Taylor & Francis, 2001. Print.

West, Henry. An Introduction to Mills Utilitarian Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!