The Dilemma of Torturing an Enemy Soldier
The scenario, whereby I have captured an enemy soldier with crucial information regarding a planted secret bomb involves a dilemmatic decision-making process, especially regarding the morality of the decision that I will make. Whichever decision I may opt to take, it is associated with its own consequences. Many individuals may advocate for the torturing of the soldier to gain the information to save the endangered individuals. However, in regard to the utilitarian and deontological theories, I consider torturing of the soldier to be not morally permissible.
Utilitarian Perspective
At first, when one applies the utilitarian ethical theory to this scenario, it seems to support the ideology of torturing the soldier. The situation involves a dilemma of hurting a single man or bearing the death of many individuals. According to the utilitarian theory, entails doing the best for the greater good for the highest number of individuals. Therefore, it will be right to torture one man and save the thousands. However, an in-depth analysis of what precisely 'greater good' means changes the perception of the scenario. For instance, if the soldier will not offer the information or gives wrong information upon being tortured, I could be diminishing utility for every involved individual. This is highly refuted by the utilitarian ethical theory. It is a requirement for ends to justify the means in utilitarian morality. Notably, an in-depth reflection of the utilitarian theory that considers more than an immediate situation would note that the consequences may be eventually negative for the greater good as opposed to positive. Torturing the soldier will offer an immediate solution, but corrupt the morality of the state in the long run, thereby achieving a worse end in the long term. Therefore, as per the utilitarian theory, it will be morally impermissible for me to subject the soldier to torture; instead, I will use other morally acceptable techniques.
Deontological Perspective
The deontological perspective of the scenario reaffirms the utilitarianism arguments. The deontological moral theory focuses on the creation of universal rules to govern the morality of human actions. Its ideologies of fundamental human rights alongside common humanity are at the forefront of dismissing the option of torturing the soldier. According to the Kant's deontological theory, there are two universal principles I should consider. First, I should act as though the maxim of my deeds are by my will to be made a universal-nature law. Further, I should act in a manner that treats humanity as an end as opposed to only a means. In regard to the first rule, The act of torturing individuals will never be justified, because, in my opinion, I would not support it to be made universal and act against myself. Moreover, under the second principle, torture is a wrong option, as subjecting an individual through torture for the purpose of gaining information will only serve as a means. Therefore, by applying the deontological approach in the scenario, it is clear that if torture is made a universal rule for obtaining information that is significant for saving lives of others, then every individual will be potentially tortured. This maxim makes the entire issue self-contradictory, thereby refuting the option of torturing the soldier.
Conclusion
Overall, upon reflecting the issue on both utilitarian and deontological theories, it is clear that I would not subject the soldier to torture, as it is not morally permissible. I would instead use other techniques in obtaining the necessary information that will lead to the saving of the endangered individuals.
