The Case for Torture Wins Torture is it morally acceptable? Many have debated this argument but I would like to bring up two main conflicting view points from Michael Levin, and Marzieh Ghisai. Michael Levin is a Jewish law professor who wrote The Case for Torture where he advocates where torture is acceptable in some circumstances.
Many people might think that torture is cruel, unacceptable and it does not show humanity. In contrast, Michael Levin says that implementing torture is needed to prevent future evil acts. In “The Case for Torture”, Michael Levin also makes it clear that there are situations in which torture is not merely acceptable but morally necessary. Levin argues that implementing torture to save people lives is morally right and reasonable. Levin’s purpose of his text is to let people know that there are times when torture becomes an option to save and protect innocent lives.
Whether or not to give money to a homeless man depends on one’s values. Especially if you have the money and would hardly notice it’s absence. This paper will argue whether to give money to a homeless person based on the theories of utilitarianism, Kantian ethics and virtue ethics. Utilitarianism promotes maximizing the most happiness or pleasure. Therefore, this view would give the homeless person the money.
2016). Using this ethical framework to argue against torture, one needs to consider the violation of the terrorist’s rights. Utilitarians argue that under a scenario where thousands of people are in danger, the well-being of the larger community is more important than neglecting the rights of a single individual (Krauthammer 2005). The simple idea of taking away a person’s autonomy for the sake of others violates rights ethics. To comprehend the violation upon the victim’s rights, it is important to understand how torture feels, “Brian describes his body as having become an object… pain is the central reality; it dominates experience and expression (Wisnewski 2010, 81).”
A number of problems surround the second question; the most obvious of which are limited time, the limited capacity of human foresight to calculate the maximum number of happiness, and the inability of the theory to advise on the time frame utilitarianism is to be applied to; how do you know the maximum number of happiness for the next 10 years doesn’t mean greater overall unhappiness in the next 50 years, so what time period should one keep in mind when considering an issue from a utilitarian stand point, 1 year, 5 years, 10, 20? This lack of clarity further adds to the impractical nature of the ideology. There are a myriad number of situations which seem very difficult to resolve without employing utilitarian principles and a very good example is the widespread use of utilitarian principles in bioethics. The best example here would obviously be the famous case of the conjoined twins Mary and Jodie. The facts in front of the court indicated that Mary was the parasitic twin who shared a heart with Jodie.
Aristotle’s virtue ethics differs from other moral theories. Unlike deontology and consequentialism, virtue ethics emphasizes and describes moral characters (virtues). In my paper, I am going to explore the objection to virtue ethics from a relativist point of view and the responses to this objection that were presented in Nussbaum’s paper “A non-relative approach to virtue ethics.” Furthermore, I am going to present two out of three relativist objections to her responses that she anticipated, and her responses to them.
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.
To use preference utilitarianism to make ethical decisions, would require us to look at and weigh the preferences of all of these beings involved in the situation, not just our own personal interests. However,
I agree with Kant that lying is wrong. However, unlike Kant, I do believe there are exceptions that allow us to justify a lie when the greater good outweighs the wrongness from the lie. When I say greater good I do not necessarily mean the greater good for all, as in utilitarianism, but more the overall result from the lie is better than the overall result from not lying (e.g., a life is saved). So, I guess I prescribe to consequentialism here.
1.0 Introduction Ethics is defined as the study of right and wrong, and the moral principles governing behaviour (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, & Meyer, 2010). In the world today, ethics is essential to ensure the preservation of human dignity and to guide moral decisions, especially when considering the new issues and controversies emerging due to technological and societal advances. There are a range of ethical frameworks from which these issues can be examined including, but not limited to, natural law, utilitarianism and situational ethics. This report will focus on the issue of human trafficking from the philosophical framework of situational ethics. It will also consider an ethical framework based on the Catholic social teachings with reference
The idea of virtue ethics was first introduced to the world by Aristotle over 2,300 years ago in 325 BC (Rachels 173). Virtue ethics operate on the belief that people develop good character by looking at the virtues they admire in other people and emulating them. In order to do this, a person must ask themselves what kind of person they want to be and focus on choosing characteristics not specific people to emulate. Unfortunately, virtue ethics were quickly overshadowed by other perspectives on ethical theory as Christianity gained popularity and values changed. As time went on people stopped asking themselves, “What traits make a good person?”
Hyejin Jang Professor Writing DED 8 April 2016. 4. 7. Kant’s ethics differs from utilitarian ethics both in its scope and in the precision with which it guides action. In The Categorical Imperative, Kant emphasizes that human autonomy is the essence of morality.
Utilitarian suggest that we make our moral decisions from the position of a benevolent, disinterested spectator. Rather than thinking about
The virtue theory, which pursues virtuous principles, strategies and actions, can lead companies to understand their values, including mission, purpose, profit potential and other objectives. Virtuous employees tend to perform their roles consistently and competently in the direction of the company's goals. Virtues are the kind of thing you allow someone to take action to appreciate. Business people increase their likelihood of reaching their values and goals when they reach Objectivist virtues. Virtues emphasize the importance of each employee's valuable contribution.
Virtue ethics started drawing attention since the modern ethics exposed its limitation and reconsideration about the priority was needed. Contemporary ethics focus on “What we should do”, instead of “What kind of person we should do”. In consequence, the moral codes in modern era solely emphasizes moral duty and rules, while neglecting personality and character of individuals. Virtue ethics support the traditional criterion that consider moral virtue and personality of individuals as important. The virtue of good engineer includes creativity, good understanding of culture, morality, and capability of communication.
