Act Utilitarianism
Oh My Gosh! Did Someone Say A Bomb!!
I believe torture is morally justifiable/permissible only with situations, in which you can guarantee the best possible outcome. In this particular situation with the bomber, I believe we should take the Utilitarian-Act Consequentialism approach; and torture the bomber as an attempt to get him to reveal the location. Simply because, Act Consequentialism will focus more on the overall happiness that it will bring to all those involved. Seeing as how they have apprehended the bomber, and interrogated him to no avail. It is the police commissioners only hope to confirm the publics’ faith in the system; which should clearly be capable in making decisions that are ugly but necessary, for securing the safety of others. I believe that Act Consequentialism allows for the attempt to torture both the bomber alongside his wife, if it leads to the discovery of the bomb. An excerpt in which describes my reasoning in the belief that Act Consequentialism will allows this notion is: 'Act Consequentialism holds that the good determines the right - the only consideration relevant to the rightness of an act is the amount of goodness it produces'. 1 (McNaughton and Piers Rawlings pg32) from David McNaughton and Piers Rawlings essay on Deontology. Versus the Kantian and Rule Consequentialism of utilitarianism which would believe that this is morally wrong, despite of the lives that could be saved. Rule Consequentialism and Deontology are very similar in their beliefs. For example, this was said in regards to Rule Consequentialism: 'In particular, rule consequentialism is likely to include constraints, options, and special obligations. There will, for example, be a fairly simple rule against killing the innocent, since the adoption of a more complicated rule that allowed killing in pursuit of the good would be hard to follow'. 2 (McNaughton and Piers Rawlings pg34)
I believe torture is morally justifiable/permissible only with situations, in which you can guarantee the best possible outcome. In this particular situation with the bomber, I believe we should take the Utilitarian-Act Consequentialism approach; and torture the bomber as an attempt to get him to reveal the location. Simply because, Act Consequentialism will focus more on the overall happiness that it will bring to all those involved. Seeing as how they have apprehended the bomber, and interrogated him to no avail. It is the police commissioners only hope to confirm the publics’ faith in the system; which should clearly be capable in making decisions that are ugly but necessary, for securing the safety of others. I believe that Act Consequentialism allows for the attempt to torture both the bomber alongside his wife, if it leads to the discovery of the bomb. An excerpt in which describes my reasoning in the belief that Act Consequentialism will allows this notion is: 'Act Consequentialism holds that the good determines the right - the only consideration relevant to the rightness of an act is the amount of goodness it produces'. 1 (McNaughton and Piers Rawlings pg32) from David McNaughton and Piers Rawlings essay on Deontology. Versus the Kantian and Rule Consequentialism of utilitarianism which would believe that this is morally wrong, despite of the lives that could be saved. Rule Consequentialism and Deontology are very similar in their beliefs. For example, this was said in regards to Rule Consequentialism: 'In particular, rule consequentialism is likely to include constraints, options, and special obligations. There will, for example, be a fairly simple rule against killing the innocent, since the adoption of a more complicated rule that allowed killing in pursuit of the good would be hard to follow'. 2 (McNaughton and Piers Rawlings pg34)