Mill And Kant's View On Torture

799 Words4 Pages
Final Draft Article--Torture Let’s first take a look at an overview about how ethics relate to both Mill and Kant when discussing torture, both having two completely different views. Kant uses moral reasoning, “categorical imperative”, which says that a person’s behavior should live up to moral laws. He states that moral laws are the truth of reason and that all rational people should oblige to the same moral law. He focuses on moral verses immoral actions, allowing us to make easier decisions that involve only bad and good. Kant does not however talk about decisions when faced with the opposite, for example, when faced with bad vs bad or good vs good. He talks about having belief in free will, God and the eternal soul. Freedom plays a…show more content…
Harris speaks about torture and how it is “acceptable “when it comes to our war on terror. Dershowitz, while saying torture isn’t acceptable, it is happening and that rules should be put in place. Both of these philosophers can relate to the position of Mill’s. Harris, for example, says torture is okay when it comes to war on terror, knowingly we may be killing thousands of innocent people. This agrees with Mill’s, “doing the bad to get the good”. Dershowitz says that torture is happening and states a fact of the Israeli Secret Services and how they do use a “form” of torture to obtain information, again going along with Mill’s statement, “doing the bad to get the good”. When we take a look at Charles and Greg’s discuss they feel completely different, torture is just not acceptable. They feel like we should all have self-respect and honor each other’s self-worth. They relate mostly to Kant’s position on torture, moral laws. Kant also agrees that, we should treat each other equally and that any form of torture just isn’t the appropriate
Open Document