Emmanuel Kant And The War On Terrorism

The "war on terrorism" is an international military campaign administered by the United States after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Since the attack on the World Trade Centers, there have been new security legislation, open and covert military operations, and many other measures against national and global terrorism. This "war on terror" has induced increased fear and violence between nations, which has consequently led to many executive limits on the fight against terrorism. Limits on torture, decision-making responsibility, and noncombatant involvement should be considered and respected in the fight against terrorism and will be analyzed using several moral approaches and principles outlined by notable philosophers. Politics

Deontologist Emmanuel Kant believes that moral imperatives must be categorical imperatives that apply to all rational beings. In other words, the fact that humans are rational entails that people should always be treated as ends and rather than means. On the grounds that all people must be treated as ends and dignity bearing entities, Kant would likely oppose the use of torture not only in the war on terror, but in any situation. The consequentialist argument for torture as a means of obtaining intelligence in high-pressure situations is quite contrarily a sound deontological argument against torture. Torturing as a means of obtaining information goes against the categorical imperative of rationality, so Kantian ethics would presumably hold that torture must not be implemented, regardless of the

The brutal and sometimes fatal methods employed by American agents have been described as barbaric and even unconstitutional with regards to the lack of due process. These specific cases were certainly not ticking time bomb scenarios, nor did the torture appear to be an urgent means of gathering information for a good end. The consequentialist argument for the use of torture is made on the basis that it will reveal information that leads to an ultimate good. The deontological argument holds that torture goes against the categorical imperative which entails treating all people as ends. That being said, a viable limit to torture in the fight against terrorism might be implementing it solely as a means of preventing acts of terror and never as a form of