Act Utilitarianism Essay Example for Free

Act Utilitarianism Essay 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) An example written in regards to Kantianism, the foundation of Deontology states the idea: We are not morally bound by any alleged requirement unless it is backed by principles that we can recognize as what we ourselves, as a rational, self-governing persons, will for ourselves and others. 3 (Kantianism pg237) Showing that the Kantian and Rule Utilitarianism, uses the same filter in most situations to determine the best action. The main idea at the core is still a form of the Golden Rule, do onto others as you want done unto you. For who would make a moral law to torture humans? Therefore it is not morally permissible from a Kantian and Rule Utilitarian approach, because it is clearly immoral to torture people for any purpose. Therefore this belief will lead to the murdering of hundreds of innocent people. Thus leading to a very catastrophic situation; not only for those involved, but as well as the world. Do we remember the effects of terrorism in a free country? Not to mention the main medium affected in making this decision will be the police commissioner. Will he live in a perpetual state of what if if he doesnt act? Seeing as how he is the person who decides to make this call. This is the reason I feel the Act Consequentialism approach is necessary in this scenario. Just the sheer fact that these people are once again, innocent and have done no crime; therefore should not have to suffer because of the bomber decisions or point he may be proving. The Act Consequentialist may take into account, the overall possibility to effect more than just the hundred people, but the effect it would have on the rest of the world (the universal outcome). Meaning we have to understand the consequences that this will have not only on the victims but also the rest of the world who witnesses these acts. This to me would morally be the right thing to do regardless of the Kantian approach. Simply because, this outcome may be more beneficial to people, thus promoting happiness and safety to more people. Although my solution will still give us fear in the name of terrorism; it will however instill the belief in the protection police provide, not to mention their ability to make great choices, thus leading to a stronger and safer country. We can see an example of this in our own society daily. For example, you have some military soldiers who have killed many people in the sake of good, yet feel no guilt. Possibly because they are reminded of the overall benefit they provided to our nation, as well as the safety that they have provided; which may not have been possible, if they enacted upon that situation differently. So this is the main reason why I believe torture would be morally justifiable in this situation to torture the bomber as well as the wife; in a desperate attempt to save innocent people. Clearly because it could lead to the safety of more people and the security of a nation, in which we are all tied in together. This still can be seen as a good outcome because of the attempts taken. Or better yet assuming that this decision will actually work in the discovery of the bombs saving the people would still be a good outcome. However I can truly understand that the unpredictability of the situations outcome, is yet another motivation that would encourage a Kantian or Rule Consequentialist to stand its moral ground; however, differing from my own ideas of this situation. Feeling, that something needs to be done, instead of watching such an injustice.