I had an interesting thought after the manhunt and then eventual death of Al-Qaeda’s Osama Bin Laden. Many philosophy students will be familiar with the ‘ticking bomb’ scenario; an idea of whether it is right to torture someone who holds information that could prevent a bomb or weapon of mass destruction from detonating, saving many lives but compromising morals. Information is still unravelling from the operation and the US government is deciding whether it is in the public interest for some of it to become known. We are told that knowledge of Bin Laden’s compound was obtained through the monitoring of a courier, but who knows whether this information came from another source?
The utilitarian view that everything should be done in the greater good is extremely plausible and favourable in most scenarios; but most countries hold dear the founding notions of Habeas Corpus and not torturing citizens. Kant’s argument, the categorical imperative, pushed the notion that people are ends in themselves; they cannot be used as means. For example, in a war, it is morally wrong to shell an area if you think an enemy may be hiding there, but kill a few innocent people instead, the sacrifice of the few for the many is necessary - is morally incompatible.
Theories always sound grand on paper and often seem inflexible when discussed in open debate. Would countries and citizens deem the utilitarian approach that punishment of the innocent can be justified if the majority benefit, if Osama’s whereabouts had been obtained by torture and he was on the verge of planning another 9/11? Would this contravene national morality? Or can laws and rights be absolute? These were questions America asked itself in the aftermath of September 2001 and after Sunday it may tip the balance that it made the right decision.
The utilitarian view that everything should be done in the greater good is extremely plausible and favourable in most scenarios; but most countries hold dear the founding notions of Habeas Corpus and not torturing citizens. Kant’s argument, the categorical imperative, pushed the notion that people are ends in themselves; they cannot be used as means. For example, in a war, it is morally wrong to shell an area if you think an enemy may be hiding there, but kill a few innocent people instead, the sacrifice of the few for the many is necessary - is morally incompatible.
Theories always sound grand on paper and often seem inflexible when discussed in open debate. Would countries and citizens deem the utilitarian approach that punishment of the innocent can be justified if the majority benefit, if Osama’s whereabouts had been obtained by torture and he was on the verge of planning another 9/11? Would this contravene national morality? Or can laws and rights be absolute? These were questions America asked itself in the aftermath of September 2001 and after Sunday it may tip the balance that it made the right decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment