Is torture ever permissible? please consider the a consequentialist view and tic

Question

Is torture ever permissible? please consider the a consequentialist view and ticking time bomb theory, or the deotologist argument where the human right to be tortured is inalienable thus refute the consequentialist argument.
Hi I need some opinions on this moral question for my essay, please refer to UN conventions (such as CAT or the Geneva conventions etc) as well if possible Is torture ever permissible? please consider the a consequentialist view and ticking time bomb theory, or the deotologist argument where the human right to be tortured is inalienable thus refute the consequentialist argument. Is torture ever permissible? please consider the a consequentialist view and ticking time bomb theory, or the deotologist argument where the human right to be tortured is inalienable thus refute the consequentialist argument.
Hi I need some opinions on this moral question for my essay, please refer to UN conventions (such as CAT or the Geneva conventions etc) as well if possible

Explanation / Answer

Of we are to look at the argument of that of consequentalist, the so sequences of a problem if not thwarted before can be of great consequence and hence needs to be curbed.

Lets take the instance of that of possible terrorist attack. According to the reasoning of consequentialist the attack need to be thwarted and will require torture of a person who has the information for the protection of the given nation state.

But, if we look at the ticking time bomb theory, predominantly advocated by Jeremy Betham, the theory states that there are plausible probable outcomes thst one needs to weigh on order to indulge in a henious act such as that. There are probabilities of the person concerned not revealing any useful information whatsoever when and if tortured, which can lead to the violation of several moral implications.

If we are to look at the deotonligical side of the argument, wherein the moral obligation that binds a person is the supreme stressor in the conduction of an action. Morality is quite different than ethics, which are laws and morality is something that insinuates values. Deontological thought would refute the argument of that of the consequentalist for they wouldn't believe in conducting an act that is morally void due to its nature which stands as an antithesis of the inherent natural laws.

If we look at Kantian philosophy, he would refute the act of torture as intrinsically wromg fuel to its inherent nature and conduct. Consequentalist may argue that the consequences that are derives from a torture may help them stop a potential attack, and hence be good, but according to Kant, one a not overlook the fact that notjing is truly ethically amd morally right if it is achieved by the causation of harm to another.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.