Morals on Torture
Throughout modern history, morals is questioned when torture is involved. Torture should be a black and white, yes or no question. It is acceptable to do an immoral act, as long as the act itself is legal, to create a good outcome. In the case of Mr. Wolfgang Daschner, it does not matter that it was uncertain whether using torture gets the required information. To threaten to use torture is the same as actually torturing, both legally and morally. Should torture and the threat of torture be morally and legally acceptable, then in all levels involving local, state and federal systems should be able to use torture techniques.
To commit an immoral act is not the same as committing an illegal act. Actions could be legal and immoral, moral and illegal, or legal and moral. When making a decision between morals and [il]legal actions, people need to decide which is more important. It is more beneficial to commit an immoral act, that is legal, than a moral yet illegal act. When people believe that they are performing the moral act, even when “there is a clear ban” (Hawley) on it, those same people will have to answer to the legal system. When Mr. Wolfgang Daschner decided to threaten a man with torture, he did what he felt was right to try and save a young boy’s life, he did so against the law. It is acceptable to do an immoral act, as long as the act itself is legal, to create a good outcome. When Mr. Wolfgang Daschner threaten the college student, he committed an illegal act which also turned the act immoral, that did not even save the child that was kidnapped.
Furthermore, in the case of Mr. Wolfgang Daschner, it does not matter that it was uncertain whether using torture gets the required information. As the former deputy police chief, Frankfurt Wolfgang Daschner decided to...