Well, not to sure how I did on the test. I feel like I kinda ran ot of information during the test. Not sure what i left out as I am too tired of the info and too lazy to reread my stuff tonight. I'm worried it won't be as technical as my prof wants it to be, but too late to make changes now. I'll look them both over when I get my grades back from the prof.
G'nite,
'stine
2.14.2006
Philosphy of Ethics (with Kant in mind)
Blah! I can't believe it has been this long since I've posted. I love this place; there just isn't any time anymore for posting. I am going to try to keep it alive by posting my school projects. I know this isn't the most interesting thing to be reading in a personal blog, but at least it gives me something to read (since I know you guys out there don't really read my blog anyways -so much for the "faithful readers" line I always give).
Anyways, I have a test tomorrow in Ethics. It is a written exam. Here is my practice essay for it, including the essay prompt:
Clarify how Kant would address the issue of whether torture is ever justified. Is a Kantian approach to the ethics of torture a sound approach? You should focus on the first and second categorical imperative, but you can include other concepts to support your view.
Is Torture Justified according to Kant?
Immanuel Kant would not have advocated torture as a means of punishment or as a means of extortion because
1. Torture as a means of punishment is not really retribution (advocated by Kant), but revenge,
2. To meet out revenge is to lower one’s self to the level of the person who committed the crime in the first place
and
3. Torture as a means of extortion does not consider the individual an end, but instead considers him/her a means.
First let us define torture: Torture is the infliction of severe physical or mental pain as a means of punishment or coercion. To determine right and wrong Kant used the categorical imperative:
1. Live by that maxim that you could will to be universal law.
2. Consider people as an end and not merely as a means.
Kant advocated punishment as a necessary consequence to the crimes of individuals. According to the categorical imperative the reasoning behind this philosophy would be: it is a good universal law that people be justly punished for their crimes. If the universal law were otherwise, then there would be no societal justice and we would all be guilty of murder. Also, it would not be just to neglect punishing someone who had committed a crime.
As an advocate for punishment, Kant would never have supported torture because it does not punish the individual for his or her crime, but instead fulfils our own desire for revenge. When we perpetrate acts of revenge we are reducing our own morality to that of the person who committed the act we are revenging. If we were to live by the rule that we meet out revenge for every immoral act, then we would all be committing immoral acts and the universe would morally unsound.
Furthermore, acting out of revenge disrespects the person’s humanity because we are using him or her to create a feeling of satisfaction within ourselves, rather than punishing the person for his or her crime (using them as a means, rather than seeing them as an end).
Some might argue that torture to obtain information that could potentially save lives, such as from prospective terrorists, would be justified; Kant’s philosophy disagrees with this view. According to Kant, we are supposed to look at the intrinsic value of an act, not the extrinsic value (consequences) of that act. Torture is intrinsically wrong according to Kant’s philosophy and is therefore, according to him, never justified.
Instead of following our human desires and feelings we should follow moral law. To do this we must exercise good will, which is intrinsic to the act itself. When someone commits a crime their punishment must be meted from a desire to see justice done, because it is the right thing to do, not because it makes us feel righteous. We should, also, always respect the humanity of individuals, treating them with justice and good will, because in the end we are all not merely the means, but the end.
Anyways, I have a test tomorrow in Ethics. It is a written exam. Here is my practice essay for it, including the essay prompt:
Clarify how Kant would address the issue of whether torture is ever justified. Is a Kantian approach to the ethics of torture a sound approach? You should focus on the first and second categorical imperative, but you can include other concepts to support your view.
Is Torture Justified according to Kant?
Immanuel Kant would not have advocated torture as a means of punishment or as a means of extortion because
1. Torture as a means of punishment is not really retribution (advocated by Kant), but revenge,
2. To meet out revenge is to lower one’s self to the level of the person who committed the crime in the first place
and
3. Torture as a means of extortion does not consider the individual an end, but instead considers him/her a means.
First let us define torture: Torture is the infliction of severe physical or mental pain as a means of punishment or coercion. To determine right and wrong Kant used the categorical imperative:
1. Live by that maxim that you could will to be universal law.
2. Consider people as an end and not merely as a means.
Kant advocated punishment as a necessary consequence to the crimes of individuals. According to the categorical imperative the reasoning behind this philosophy would be: it is a good universal law that people be justly punished for their crimes. If the universal law were otherwise, then there would be no societal justice and we would all be guilty of murder. Also, it would not be just to neglect punishing someone who had committed a crime.
As an advocate for punishment, Kant would never have supported torture because it does not punish the individual for his or her crime, but instead fulfils our own desire for revenge. When we perpetrate acts of revenge we are reducing our own morality to that of the person who committed the act we are revenging. If we were to live by the rule that we meet out revenge for every immoral act, then we would all be committing immoral acts and the universe would morally unsound.
Furthermore, acting out of revenge disrespects the person’s humanity because we are using him or her to create a feeling of satisfaction within ourselves, rather than punishing the person for his or her crime (using them as a means, rather than seeing them as an end).
Some might argue that torture to obtain information that could potentially save lives, such as from prospective terrorists, would be justified; Kant’s philosophy disagrees with this view. According to Kant, we are supposed to look at the intrinsic value of an act, not the extrinsic value (consequences) of that act. Torture is intrinsically wrong according to Kant’s philosophy and is therefore, according to him, never justified.
Instead of following our human desires and feelings we should follow moral law. To do this we must exercise good will, which is intrinsic to the act itself. When someone commits a crime their punishment must be meted from a desire to see justice done, because it is the right thing to do, not because it makes us feel righteous. We should, also, always respect the humanity of individuals, treating them with justice and good will, because in the end we are all not merely the means, but the end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)