There are situations that warrant the use of drastic actions to achieve an objective that is intended to materialise in the long run. There are situations which demand that that the means should justify the end or rather the effects of having achieved something should not be based on the means in which it was achieved. It is not acceptable for the activities or the means of doing something to be bad to achieve something good (Vahid 206-224). The situation of the police officer using force in coercion to the kidnapper to relinquish the location of the kidnaped child is not warranted and is uncalled for. In the application of the deontological theory, there should be no situation where the choice of doing an activity can justify the consequences of the activity not matter how good the effects are (Smith 351-363). In this case, no matter how the desired effects of the police officer, which is the disclosure of the location of the kidnapped child, some choices are forbidden.
It is determinable that the case of the police officer would elicit a chain reaction of events which would lead to more damage and hurt to many other people who might be innocent. The use of blunt force in the aspect of interrogation which is based on the uncertainty if the child is live. it can be deduced that the only person who knows the location of the kidnapped child is the kidnapper and therefore, some actions can jeopardize the investigation process. It is in this sense that the use of force can result in the kidnapper being dead or fall into a medical condition that can incapacitate him not disclose the location. Therefore, despite that, the kidnapper can be forced to give up the location the means are too risky as the end is. Therefore, the police officer cannot resort to using wrongful actions in the attempt to minimize the chances of having the child taking long to be found or the agony of the parents being relieved.
Based on the conclusion above, it is therefore uncertain that the use of force would have the desired outcomes. It is something which was based on the wrong footing and had more factors at stake and more necessary a factor of consideration. It is in this situation that the normative process is bound to be followed take its course. The utilitarian sociological theory connotates that an act should be judged as right or wrong based on the consequences of the actions (Arntzenius 31-58). In this case, the effects and the consequences do not in any way dictate the actions and the means to get there. therefore, this theory gives a thin line in the way in which the actions will do not matter in cases if the effects and the consequences are achieved. The actions of an activity should not in any way be limited and bound by other factors in the attempt to achieve an effect that is desired by many (Freiman 250-269). In this case, the interests of the many would have taken into consideration as opposed to the interest of a few. This is a situation of a person who will cause pain and suffering to many people, including the family, state organs and the security officers. Therefore, the police officer would then consider to who which side the effects will have more plausible effects despite their actions.
In the case of the police of officer, his intentions were that the kidnapper would give up the location of the where the child is held. It is in this case, that the officer used blunt force seem to be very justifiable in that manner that in the end the location of the child was given. This, therefore, shows that it is a stronger aspect more than the one of deontology. There is a sense in which if the police officer would not have used force, then the location of the child would not have been found. Therefore, the parents would have been forced to offer the ransom for a dead child. It is determinable that the family would have acted out of desperation and this would have led them to give the ransom and the result is they would have lost money and got a dead child back.
There is no difference in committing torture and threatening to someone to do it on him. This is because the use of torture and a threat all serve the same thing, to inflict fear and coercion to the person. there is a sense in which when a person is threatened to be tortured, he or she will undergo psychological torture and therefore it will be the same as torture itself. The manner in which the threats are made might have the same effects as torture itself and would result to the person experiencing more personal and psychological conflicts as it is in actual physical torture. These are two means towards an end, but one might be more effective than the other, however, on the scales of morality, the mode of the threat and the level of the torture can define how the consequences will arise. Therefore, in terms of morality, both threats to torture and the actual torture are both immoral to the extent of their practicability.
There are other means which can be used to make a person talk rather than the use of torture. The kidnapper can be promised of a lesser judgment if he corporates without which he faces the full force of the sentence. These are aspects that the kidnapper probably weighed before he committed the crime. He understood the consequences, therefore tabling them before him for consideration might make him give up the location of the child. The kidnapper knows the child is already dead, therefore if he gains the ransom and it is determined that the child is dead, the police will never tire looking for him. Therefore, he would sign the agreement and disclose the location. despite the fact that Osama bin Laden is held accountable for the death of thousands of Americans, the use of torture was not warranted. A more inclusive agreement would have been made and a compromise reached. Torture was applied to many people before the location of Osama was known and therefore a trail of destruction was left by the torturers. the use of blunt force to gain information no matter how good the effects or consequences are is not warranted. Two wrongs will not make a right, doing something awful to someone so that something else good happens cannot be used as the tilting point of some activities or choices.
Works cited
Arntzenius, Frank. "Utilitarianism, Decision Theory and Eternity." Philosophical Perspectives 28.1 (2014): 31-58. Web.
Freiman, Christopher. "Utilitarianism And Public Justification." Journal of Social Philosophy 44.3 (2013): 250-269. Web.
Smith, Michael. "Deontological Moral Obligations and Non-Welfarist Agent-Relative Values." Ratio 24.4 (2011): 351-363. Web.
Vahid, Hamid. "Deontological Conservatism And Perceptual Justification." Theoria 83.3 (2017): 206-224. Web.
Comentarios