Ethics
school, is it legal for the police to
EXPERIENCE:
According to utilitarianism, we should
always do whatever will produce the
greatest amount of happiness and whatever
is necessary to prevent the greatest amount
of unhappiness. But what if the only way
to produce happiness, and to prevent
unhappiness, is to harm or even kill people
who are innocent?
Answer:
Utilitarianism struggles with harming
innocents for the "greater good." They
might:
Minimize harm: Consider if some
happiness comes at a terrible cost for
innocent lives.
Weigh the scale: See a big difference
between killing one to save many vs. a
minor inconvenience.
Seek alternatives: Look for solutions that
create happiness without harming
innocents.
In conclusion, utilitarianism prioritizes the
greatest happiness for the most people.
This means minimizing suffering, even if
it means finding alternatives to harming
innocent people. While some might see
harming the innocent as a last resort, most
utilitarians would argue for exhausting all
other options and carefully considering the
severity of the harm before taking such a
drastic step.
ASSESS:
1. Let us imagine that a man planted a
bomb in your school, and it will
explode in two hours unless the
police are able to find it. Due to
time constraint and the
impossibility of evacuating the
use torture to draw information
from a suspected bomber?
Answer:
Even in life-or-death situations, torture
remains illegal and ineffective.
International law, like the Convention
Against Torture, forbids it. Torture is
unreliable because people under
extreme pain might lie or be too
confused to give accurate information.
Law enforcement has other options,
like following existing leads,
negotiating with the suspect, and
attempting an evacuation, even if time
is short. The priority should be finding
the bomb and minimizing casualties,
not resorting to methods that violate
human rights and may not provide
useful information.
2. Based on your answer in number 1,
what if the man who planned the
bomb will not say its location
unless his two-year-old child is
tortured? Will it be legal for the
police to torture the two-year old
child, if doing so reveals the
location of the bomb?
Answer:
No, even under these horrific
circumstances, torturing a two-year-old
child would be illegal and morally
reprehensible. Here's why:
International Law: The Convention
Against Torture prohibits torture
absolutely, regardless of the situation.
Harming an innocent child is a clear
violation.
Legal Alternatives: Though time is
tight, the police should focus on
existing leads, negotiation, and
evacuation efforts as before.

Psychological Impact: The

psychological trauma inflicted on the
child would be devastating and long-
lasting.

This scenario is designed to be a

difficult ethical dilemma, but there's no
justification for torture. The police
have a responsibility to uphold the law
and protect innocent lives. Torture only
creates more victims and doesn't
guarantee a successful outcome.

CHALLENGE:
Utilitarianism argues that we should
always maximize happiness. And this
is true regardless of whether we are
deciding for our private lives or on
concerns (laws and the like). This
means that as a principle, we are to
choose actions that will always
produce the greatest amount of
happiness. Provide circumstances
where this might not be true.