Original Question: Should they torture the prisoner?

" From your understanding of Holmes discussions (Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions), explain how each of the following theories might answer the question: utilitarianism, Kantian duty-based ethics, virtue ethics, and Christian-principle based ethics. Select the theory you think is the appropriate one to take in this case and explain why.

Statement: When approaching a question such as whether torture should be allowed in situations such as interrogation and other areas of security, one must be very delicate with the subject. Dogmatism is never a good answer on subjects such as this and it could cause one to lose their witness with someone. It may not be known that the other person involved in this conversation is an exwar veteran that had to use torture so save thousands of lives, or that the person could have been a Prisoner of War and endured the pain of torture in order to protect this persons country. Needless to say, catering the conversation with a certain amount of sympathy is always needed. Someone who leans toward utilitarianism would search the specific issue of torture out to see if it fit their description of Good and/or Right. If this torture of one person or a small group were to benefit thousands of others by saving their lives and protecting their personal security, utilitarianism would say that it is good to do this because it is at the benefit of the more, and is right to do so in turn. Kants Duty based ethics would look at this situation and ask if the person performing the torture was fulfilling duty by doing so. If this person were following the instructions by the higher command, it doesnt matter how this person feels, the duty is being fulfilled and that is a good and/or right thing. Virtue ethics have a seemingly similar approach, but focus more on the emotions and feelings the person has other that the motives. This person that is torturing out of duty is fulfilling that duty nonetheless, but this person might enjoy torture for his own personal gain. Even though the duty is being fulfilled, virtue ethics say that this person is wrong in doing it, not by fulfilling the duty, but by other selfish motives. If this person were doing it out of love of country in order to save lives, but was not fulfilling the duty, than this person is justified out of a good virtue. A Christian view on this matter is, again, situational. The biblical principles call for one to seek out the will of God and attempt to honor Him and share as much love as possible. Torturing someone is not necessarily how one would describe loving, which is how the Bible calls Christians to be. Some might find ways how torture and love would coincide, but they are very few. One might claim that this person has caused much harm to others and forgiveness has not affected them to repent. In this case, torturing them just as they have tortured other might be a tough, but loving, way to express the point that might cause this persons life to change. This is a far stretch. The Bible Addresses issues such as killing as selfdefense, but torture is not described there. However, God uses torture on those he loves, even though He might not want to. Torturing humans in hell, or stating that trials are torture is not the intent here. There is no doubt that God is a loving, but just, being. God does, in fact, Love Lucifer even after the fall. It is to Lucifers own benefit to suffer the consequences of his actions and to one day be tortured day and night for eternity. The Bible calls us to be like God in that there are some things that we might not want to do, but are necessary for true love to be shown.

Argument:

I found your post to be very informative and very insightful; however, I would have to disagree with your statement regarding the Christian view and the relation between torture and love. You stated that A Christian view on this matter is, again, situational and that [t]orturing someone is necessarily how one would describe loving, which is how the Bible calls Christians to be.
I do not believe that a Christian view is situational because as Holmes mentioned that when it comes to Christian Moral Rules, there arent any situations or acts that are so different from another. I also do not believe a person torturing another displays love, not even in the slightest way. Torture contains pain and malice and comes from an evil, sadistic place with the intent of coercion. Some would say that God tortures His children just to show power and to do it without any particular reason but I would have to disagree with this statement. God gives out punishments to those who deserve it and they are the consequences of ones actions. Gods punishments are perfectly just and fair. Being that only God holds the ability to remain forever just and fair, the Christian-principal based ethical theory should definitely be used in the view regarding torturing a prisoner. I pray that your scholastic journey bless you in a way that is unlike ever before.

Counter Argument:

I understand your disagreement, but find it misinformed. The view is situational in the fact of the definition of torture, not in the moral standings of a particular Christian. To say that Torture is rooted in evil would be to say that God must be evil. I never stated that God tortured his people, that depends on your theological views of the last few books of Revelation, but even annihilationists would state that the Bible is clear that God sentences Satan to torture for eternity. Saying that God is evil for doing this is not justified. God may be justified in his acts, but that does not make the fact change that He is using torture. Look at the book of Job. Job indeed went through torture, there is no disputing this. This torture, as we know, comes from Satan. However Satan is not able to do this without God's go ahead. God was not disciplining Job, but allowing Satan to use torture so God could teach Job and use him as an example. I know that torturing someone else may not seem loving, and i did have a typo in my original argument. *Not necessarily* should be inserted. What i was stating was that one must open their mind to each scenario, not just the topic at broad. Jesus spoke in parables, and so shall I. A friend of mine who I love dearly has gone mad and murdered many people. This man is planning on murdering many more. Incarceration and interrogation have, and will not work on this man. Even though the man is confined, his plan is still being carried out and people are dying. I love this man very much, but torture seems to be the only option to save these people, and even the man himself. I proceed with this process and the man realizes pain for what it is, so that he stops the cruel acts that he has put on and returns to his normal self. When all is said in done, is what I did considered loving? I loved the friend enough to put aside my feelings and do what was necessary to save the people and the man. With this scenario in mind, one can see how love and torture can be situation. A kiss may be generally thought of as love, and a slap as hate, but slapping a friend who needs a good wake up call is better than the kiss that Judas used to betray Jesus. Thank you for your response, I hope this helps in your cache of academic philosophy.