Before we decide whether it is right or wrong to torture another human being, we must first decide if the information we will gather as a result of the torture will be valid or not, and how important will it be to ultimately stop the attack. I personally feel that it is a sign of weakness to imagine that we are so vulnerable to attack from a handful of radical fanatics that we have to compromise our Christian ethics and morals. But being of an open mind let’s discuss a few different points of view as explained by Holmes.
The first view is Utilitarianism which is “concerned with maximizing benefits for the maximum number of people.” A utilitarian would argue that since the terrorist has information that could potentially save many lives, then torture is ethically appropriate. Their rationale would focus on how the country itself would benefit from the torture regardless of the moral repercussions.
Another position comes from Immanuel Kant which is called the Kantanian duty that argues that “we must act out of regard for duty and respect for moral law.” Moral law dictates that torture in any form is wrong, and a person must take that in consideration before making their final decision on this matter. Meaning that the final decision must be made without any personal bias or opinion. According to Kant, we are to “always treat persons as ends and not just means.” If you were to torture the prisoner, you would have used that person and method as a means to get the information. However, that person would become solely a means.
The final decision is not an easy one to make. Recently, our president declared that he does not condone any form of torture to any prisoner held by any US military or civilian authority. He stressed that we are to follow a higher calling and maintain the respect of not only the individual as human being but we must also uphold the principle of