When examining the usefulness of torture in averting large-scale lethal attacks on innocents, the topic of whether allowances should be made for harsh interrogation techniques that constitute to torture emerges. We need to make a distinction between consequentialist and deontological moral reasoning to address this. This essay seeks to investigate the ethical implications of this problem from a deontological and consequentialist moral perspective. Posner and Vermeule support the idea that torture is acceptable in certain situations, but it's important to consider the ramifications of this position in the context of a wider ethical perspective. Deontological moral reasoning emphasizes on how acts are inherently moral and how they comply with moral rules. Torture is frequently seen as ethically wrong, irrespective of the circumstances or possible results, from a deontological perspective. Deontologists contend that torture goes against these core values since all people possess inherent rights and dignity that must be protected. Despite of what possible advantages it could have, torture …show more content…
Consequentialists would evaluate if the inherent moral issues of torture can be balanced out by the possible advantages of averting large-scale harm and protecting lives of innocent people. Calculating the possible advantages and damages associated as well as the balance between opposing rights are key components of the ethical evaluation. The trade-off between competing rights must be carefully considered in light of the consequentialist viewpoint.On the contrary, there is a moral need to reject torture, emphasizing the value and dignity that each person possesses inherently.On the other side, there is the moral right of innocent people not to be murdered or harmed, which has enormous moral