While the question, “to torture or not to torture?” is a valid question; I feel that it is important for man to understand why he is torturing the other. What justifies physically or mentally abusing someone to get information? At what point do we decide for another man that he is or is not worthy of this abuse? Each viewpoint would suggest its own justification for the prisoner. Kant said you should never treat people merely as instruments; never just as means to your own goals. Humans, he says, are autonomous beings with their own goals. (Perry) Utilitarianism would allow the torture if it meant better for society as a whole and was to their benefit. Kantian duty-based ethics would, “just be following orders” and not stop to think about the impact they are making on the prisoner or even for queen and country” or to “protect my children”. Virtue ethics would find themselves asking if it was morally appropriate to cause the prisoner to suffer and what the justification would be in said situation. Christian-principle based ethics would choose to follow the Bible and God’s call to love and show forgiveness to those who have wronged us as to whether the prisoner should be tortured or not. From a Christian-principle based ethic standpoint, it would be very situational as to whether they were to torture the prisoner.
While the stereotypical Liberty students view would be to base my decision upon my Christian beliefs, I actually would decide upon a mix of these views. Hopefully, I am never in this situation, but still I would use logic and my understanding. I will wonder if this means the betterment of others like the Utilitarian, yet question the “leader” if he says it without even wondering what type of prisoner we had in our possession. What if they are merely someone who knows nothing and was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time? I would also use the virtue