A moral understanding of Utilitarianism and torture Essay

KSM is a learning ability terrorist who has been captured by the CIA. He refuses to reveal any selective information about his placement or the members in that locationof that could be fundamental to the well-being of hundreds of lives. Even under the presence of coercive regularitys such as sleep deprivation and weewee boarding, he has refused to talk. His nine and eleven year old children have been brought into gyves and a suggestion has been made to frustrate the children.Is the option ethical or moral in any sense? Utilitarianism provides two answers for the question virtuoso asserting the full general rule of improvement, the other expanding on evaluator implicating that the capriciousness that no harm should be inflicted on the children. Each suit of clothes provide be dissected and assessed to reveal the most feasible answer to whether or non the children should be agonyd. This conclusion leave also be questi iodined on whether or non the provided answer is approaching the situation in the outflank possible manner.Utilitarianism in its simplest form distinguishes the difference between right and improper by asserting that what is right is any action of good that will positively affect the common welfare of each(prenominal). In short, the principle of utility implies that what is good is whatever bring forwards the greatest amount of joy. This implies that the happiness of one undivided is not as relevant or important as the happiness of a multitude of persons, or that the value of life can be measured in numbers and not by specific individuals.The general idea is that if five people are saved as compared to thrift one life, then there is more than happiness being created and as a result more good is being created. In KSMs case, if the general rule of utilitarianism is to be applied, then the option of torturing KSMs children is a plausible authority of coercion. This rule fundament whollyy subtracts the happiness addled by torturing the children in exchange for the shape up of hundreds and thousands of lives that could potenti eithery be saved resulting in a greater amount of happiness overall. thence utilitarianism does advocate for the torture of KSMs children. The tactic will provide the undeniable information that the CIA needs to save lives. The proponents of utilitarianism may come off as rash, insensitive, and unsympathetic beings for allowing a method such as this one to materialize in order to save many lives. Injuring two lives for the benefit of thousands more is sound, tho may not be ethical or moral. It is a difficult feat to assess what is ethical and moral especially when encountered with a situation like this.An assumption that it is immoral to not torture these children could be proposed because not playacting on the children could deter the CIA from attaining valuable information for the welfare and safety of the nation. Of course, it must not be assumed that torturing a child i s acceptable in todays standards, and utilitarianism will exertion to answer why it is not right to torture the children to obtain information through the utilitarians understanding of arbitrator.Justice to utilitarianism carries with it great burden and resonance to the ideology. According to Mill, it is one of the sole features in which utilitarianism embodies. It is stated that nicety contains in it the following rules all beings must be treated with equality, and that all(prenominal) is given their just deserts good for good, and evil for evil, that no one should be wrongly punished that no life shall be precious over another, and that the punishment should be proportionate to the offense.Another feature is that all commitments and obligations whether they be declared orally or written, should be respected and upheld and the mishap to do so is playing injustice and is a moral fallacy. Therefore, when considering the KSM case with the application of justice under utilitari anism, it seems as though it is not arranged to torture the children to obtain information from their father. The torturing of children violates the laws applicable to the definition of justice under utilitarianism.If these children are tortured, the principle that all individuals are equal and to all their justice deserts, would be invalid. These children have done nothing wrong and do not deserve to be tortured, hence the punishment that would befall them is not parallel to the ideals presented in the definition of justice. Also, the lives of these children were not properly accounted for, for if justice states that all lives are equal and that none is more valuable than the rest, then it is sharp and coextensive with justice to not torture the children.By not performing the horrendous notion, these childrens lives are not placed lower than the rest, but the opposing view could also be taken stating that by not torturing these children they are placed above thousands of other lives, giving their lives more value than the multitude, and this is does not correspond with the definition of justice. Therefore, torturing these children is not a favorable option when considering the application of utilitarianism. But there is one exclusion that utilitarianism allows, which is when certain cases arise that requires expediency, thus suspending applications of moral justice.Although both alternative methods of assessing the dilemma have been presented with each have a distinct approach. The first winning into consideration the principle of utilitarianism the latter using the principle of justice, both acting as derivatives of utilitarianism and paradoxically both approved of using torture to gain information. The principle of utility declared torture a necessary means to obtain a valuable resource that consequentially benefits the whole, and in human activity increasing happiness and goodness increasing utility.The principles of justice deemed the usage of t orture an incompatible method of attaining the means in the presented situation. The equality of the children was not taken into account and disregarded, while the action of torturing them does not correlate with spring because the children did nothing to bring this suggested harm upon themselves. But, even justice allows for the possibility of torture to resume when extenuating circumstances do not allow for a well thought out procedure, and expediency is recognized as the that reasonable means of achieving a goal. So does utilitarianism allow for the torturing of children to fall?According to the principle of utility and somewhat present in the exceptions of justice yes. This does not mean that this action is moral or ethical by any means. The intentional injury of children is wrong in many, if not all, philosophical and religious ideologies. It is not easy to accept this as the only method prescribed to remedy the situation. In this case, the means do not unfreeze the ends. Although utilitarianism states that these children should not be placed higher than any individual and there sacrifice would benefit the greater good, the implementation of torture on children is not an attractive option.Utilitarianism states that this viable option is right, but just because it may promote the general welfare and happiness of a multitude of individuals, does not needfully indicate that it will, or that any information will be extracted from KSM, thus giving the impression that it may seem right to a utilitarian, but most would consider this an act of inhumanity and a relentless, unsympathetic, irrational strain to validate assertions created on the basis of assumption and plausibility.