The other people beaten up, threatened, or otherwise abused as the cop works his way towards the movie’s conclusion are likewise shown to us as being deserved of the maltreatment.Thanks to the movie’s ability to present “God’s view” of the events, we are not queasy about seeing the cop meet out a little vigilante justice as the bad guy finally gets what he deserves.Are we, the moviegoers, appalled at the obviously unethical and illegal behavior of the cop? The director of the movie has shared with us “God’s view” of the events.Tags: Psychology Research Paper FormatTelephone Conversation By Wole Soyinka EssayDorm Life EssayBusiness Plan ProposalsSample Of An Outline For A Research PaperPersuasive Essay Organic FoodsEthical Issues In Human Resource Management EssayDo My Assignment OnlineEquitable AssignmentHow To Solve Derivatives Problems
As such, the innocence of the person being tortured is of no concern, only the information he may have. Wouldn’t we be just as obligated to torture, even more so since the girl never signed up to put her life on the line? What if gang members kidnapped the girl, or worse yet pedophiles?
We should be willing to torture a priest, a grandmother, even a small child if that would give us the information we desire. Though not as dramatic as an atomic bomb, Krauthammer claims it is still our “moral duty” to torture a terrorist if it might help us find the soldier. Is the girl’s life less worth saving because the kidnapper is not a terrorist?
Does he in fact establish a principle in support of torture? It is easy to argue against Krauthammer’s ethical philosophy.
He jettisons principles in favor of a darkly twisted version of utilitarian ethics: it is OK to do something very bad to a few people if the result is very good for a lot of people.
It’s the greater good of staving off the attack that matters. Why shouldn’t torture be standard procedure in all kidnapping cases?
Ethics Essay On Torture Essay On Arrange Marriages
The fact is, we are much more approving of torture if it is a terrorist on the receiving end of our maltreatment.
As long as the greater good is achieved, the lesser evil is acceptable.
Many radical intellectuals used this type of argument 70 years ago to defend Stalin’s brutality.
In the “Ethics 101” scenario quoted above, absolute knowledge of events is required to make the conclusions seem clear-cut, and to give us the moral wiggle room we need to condone an otherwise impermissible act. How many innocent people are you willing to torture in order to successfully extract lifesaving information from one true terrorist?
What if the scenario were presented as a potential torturer would actually see it: Intelligence sources that have sometimes been reliable in the past indicate that a terrorist has planted a bomb, possibly nuclear, in New York City. To go from the realistic scenario here to the absolutist one Krauthammer presents requires us to judge the information source to be absolutely credible and the information to be perfectly accurate, to instantly judge the suspect to be guilty and involved, and to presume that any information that might be gleaned from torturing our prisoner will in fact prove lifesaving. Do you create a mathematical formula weighing the evil of torture against some probability-weighted potential death toll?