At times morals can be clear as day. The majority of people would agree a is wrong and b is correct. However, just as many times moral lines become blurry If someone commits a crime is torturing justifiable ? Some might argue it is only okay in extreme cases. Raising the question where to draw the line. Holmes discusses four theories, utilitarianism, Kantian duty-based ethics, virtue ethics, and Christian-principle based ethics. The utilitarianism would examine the number of people involved in a situation before agreeing or disagreeing to torture. For example, if a school shooting occurred where 100 people died and were injured, the utilitarianism would see torture as beneficial for information. In the same way, if the situation at hand affected …show more content…
Furthermore, virtue ethics is a bit complex. It would analyze the motives behind the one doing and receiving the torture. If the motives of the torture are selfish and it does not improve the character of the other person, it would be deemed inappropriate. On the contrary if the motives were pure and the torture would teach and shape the other person it would likely be okay in this perspective. Lastly, Christian ethics should have a biblical foundation though there are many who could argue both perspectives. In addition to the Bible, Christian ethics seeks to bring God glory above all. This view focuses on loving God and others. Holmes adds, outcomes ideally should, “ maximize the good and minimize the evil results” (Holmes, 156). There are examples of God disciplining His children. It is clear that someone should take the punishment for their mistakes. Yet, the majority of those in the Christian ethics perspective would disagree with torturing. One is also instructed in the Bible to forgive as many times as needed. Furthermore, torturing is not in line with love, grace, forgiveness, or