Just a little something that stood out to me today during our symposium- the idea that torture, could eventually be willed as a universal law. Some of us compared this form of coercion to that of getting a speeding ticket and paying a fine. I saw my peers perspective and how they could argue this idea. The idea that it is a specific type of coercion , and you could make an appeal to society on the grounds of a specific argument, was a valid point. However, where I could not agree with them is comparing inhumane treatment to a speeding ticket. With a speeding ticket, you pay a fine. In relation to torture, a person could loose their life. Can we really simplify this so much to compare monetary punishment to a life? Can we allow this comparison , and justify it by saying it is the same idea, just on a different level? Personally, I cant. However, I couldn't argue that our society would agree with my personal beliefs. The reason is because our society implements a reoccurring topic in class, the death penalty. Maybe a society that allows this, could will torture as a universal law.
On another note, I found myself , as the discussions proceeded, agreeing with aspects of the Kantian theories and the Utilitarian theories. The reason I found this to be interesting is because we noted in class, that the ideas of deontology and utilitarianism are mutually exclusive. Meaning that one could not adopt the practices of both because they contradict each other in practice. Because I found myself doing just that, I wondered, firstly, am I the only one ? Do some of you feel it is impossible to agree wit both Kant and Mill or is it okay to adapt the thinkings of them both to create your own idea of morality and Justice? Also , I wondered, is our own personal justice system a potluck of theories , some which may contradict others? And if so, how do we deal with cases in which theories conflict?
I am asking several questions with the hopes of clarity from your opinions so please do comment.
-Voni
I agree with you that we should not compare a speeding ticket to the idea of torture. Although the two people are considered criminals for breaking the law, they cannot possibly be considered equal in their crimes. The first to me would be one who broke the law (referring to justice) while the other is breaking more of a moral law by deliberately murdering people. As far as your questions about believing in both theories, I am not entirely sure myself. I believe it would take a more in-depth examination of both theories in order to fully understand and agree with one over the other. Also I believe as we mature more and are able to commit ourselves to specific beliefs- instead of living on whims- we may be able to make a clear distinction.
ReplyDeleteMy main issue that came up several times throughout the symposium was the idea that the person with the bomb is obviously irrational; therefore, s(he) does not deserve to be treated as a rational member of society. "The rules don't apply to him/her." I understand the initial reasoning behind this defense: we want to punish those who threaten or cause harm to us, and Mill clearly outlines this notion as well. However, making the blanket statement that "the rules don't apply to those who act irrationally" in itself is an immoral statement, because as Kant would argue, you cannot will that law as a universal maxim. If you do argue that as a universal maxim, you are condemning infants, who cannot act rationally, as well as the mentally handicapped, the elderly who suffer from dementia, etc. The extent to which torture harms a person requires a far more sufficient and warranted justification.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with both of you.
ReplyDeleteAmanda: I do believe that is will take some more information and maturity to completely understand these ideas thoroughly and I am glad that I am not the only one .
Leanne : That blanket statement also bothered me. I thought it was unreasonable to argue that because someone does not abide by or respect our societal rules, that it was just to treat them inhumanely in order to possibly gain information. You also address a wonderful idea about those who cannot act rationally.