From a utilitarian perspective it seems that the answer would be yes, to go ahead and torture the prisoner, because it would produce the greatest amount of benefit for the most amounts of people; as well as the greatest good while keeping the bad under control. The hedonist Jeremy Bentham even pointed out the idea that if there is enough pain involved in punishment that it would prevent the crime.
According to Immanuel Kant’s duty–based view, the answer could possibly be not to torture. Kant had a high regard for moral law and the belief that we must have duty and respect for it.
Virtue ethics is another theory that seems that it would say no to the torturing of the prisoner. Because even though he is a terrorist that plans the harm to many lives, there is a moral aspect to the decision to be made for his planned suffering. However, justice is one of the moralities Plato listed in his cardinal virtues and some believe is the reason that torture would be the right decision in this case for the greater good.
If taking the view of Christian-principle based ethics, one might see that this case appears to pose a moral dilemma. Would torture be considered an unjust abuse? Capital punishment is considered just for the murder of another, but what about someone’s involvement in the intent to murder many? God established government and expects the government to act justly and torture is considered by some a justifiable means to get information in a case such as this.
I think the Christian-principle based ethics is the applicable theory to take in this case because it seems to be the most stable structure. It has a good balance of morality, love and justice because God is the head. With God the proper definition of justice is given and when used correctly government, as a God given authority can rightfully perform the duties that are necessary to protect its citizens. I feel if torture is the justified governmental means of obtaining information to protect this country then it should be pursued.
smufet
reply_db.docx
0
