Posted at 10.15.2018
Since the opening and the utilization of the Guantanamo Bay as a military services jail that was allowing the use of torture to get information from prisoners there has been a rise in public areas issue over whether there the utilization of torture on prisoners is right (Greenberg, 3). This paper looks into these open public debates through the sight of Plato, Aristotle and Karl Marx some of the well renowned thinkers that have come to go away. To some the utilization of torture in Guantanamo bay is morally and wrong while for some it can be an end to a way, which is essential to be able to ensure that America is safe from terrorism and hazard. From Plato, Aristotle and Marx the past view is wrong and uncalled for. The previous view can be likened to the idea of ethical relativism which both Plato and Aristotle were both against. It can be likened to the ulitarism principle, which Marx was against.
For the moral relativism theory, it stated that moral view and acts change from one society or culture to some other. It also proposes that moral view varies with regards to the situation that an individual or band of individuals are located in (Peters, 138). The theory proposes that in one culture an action can be looked at to be morally correct while in another the action can be viewed as inappropriate. If applied in the current situation the idea upholds the use of torture if the American modern culture does not notice as wrong then it is right for the torture in Guantanamo bay to keep. The theory proposes that no one group of moral values in any society is better than the other. However, Plato and his university student Aristotle weren't for this view (Huard, 20). Plato and Aristotle were for the moral objectivism theory, which declares that. In Plato's dialog, titled The Republic the turmoil between the two theories becomes apparent. Within the dialog Socrates is seen trying to engage Thrasymachus about his applying for grants what justice is. Thrasymachus a huge proponent for the relativism theory argues that justice is in the interest of the strong and there is little or nothing more to it. He further talks about how he has travelled to so many countries surrounding the world and all the laws and regulations have been tailored in order to suit the strong while oppressing the weak (Plato)
In Plato's and Aristotle's view financial firms not correct. In today's situation, Plato and Aristotle would be view the use of torture in Guantanamo bay as ethically wrong and lacking in moral view. In Plato's argument, the utilization of torture and the detention of criminals is not justice. The strong that Thrasymachus is discussing can be viewed to be the United States of America and the poor are those who have been detained in the camp. Plato and Aristotle did not agree with the view that justice and law were tailored to the good thing about those in power while disregarding the human being nature of these being oppressed. Plato in the dialog thinks that justice is widespread, that it was a consistent, which it put on everyone. According to Plato and Aristotle, all men were created equal. This is explained in the declaration of self-reliance and it is gifted with lots of unchallengeable protection under the law, which are the right to life, the right to liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That is contrary to what is going on in Guantanamo bay. The prisoner's to liberty and their pursuit of contentment have been curtailed by their detention as well as the utilization of torture about them (Malcolm, 89).
The view of Karl Marx is also against the use of torture and the detention of prisoners without trial. Marx is well known for his teachings in his work that people were not the same as animals and they could not react in the way animals do. In his discussion, he argues that the key difference between man and animals is the individual conscience, faith and a bunch of other factors that can be found in everyday life. In his argument, he says that humans distinguish themselves from animals the moment they start producing because of their own success and organizing themselves in sociable groups (Timber, 30). Therefore, his discussion can be interpreted to imply that he will not expect humans to respond and become animals. The torturing and detention of military services prisoners in Guantanamo Bay can be interpreted into animalistic habit which corresponding to Karl Marx is not individuals. Karl Marx further argues that human beings hold the will and conscience to do what's right unlike animals, which only react on their basic instinct of survival. The torturing of inmates in the Guantanamo bay jail can be viewed as America's basic instinct to try and survive just like the animals in the jungle (Rejali, 98). It is because every human being has his or her basic human rights, which are not being upheld in the jail.
The life of the prisoners in the jail can be compared to that of animals, which Karl Marx is against. Marx is also known for his fight the unitarianism theory, which really is a theory that checks the moral merit of any deed and can determine the merit of the deed depending entirely on the effectiveness of the deed in increasing what an individual is to gain out of this deed. The theory proposes that the moral worth of any action that a human being needs can be judged by the results of the deed. This is in line with 'the end justifies the means' (Allen Lumber pp 33). Karl Marx was basically against this setting of considering arguing that it was against his theory that individuals nature was different from that of animals and this free will was the primary control when it came up to the dimension of the moral merit of an action.
If the unitarianism theory is positioned in today's Guantanamo bay situation, the idea proposes that if the merchandise of the utilization of torture on the detainees produces a good result that was good for the American people then your actions are justified. Karl Marx was however against this theory and he argues that individuals nature is active and he argues that the idea is merely a measure for present situations. For example if torture can be used effectively to the benefit for america government it does not imply that it is opposing human being progress. His discussion is that not absolutely all the merit of any action can be placed on the results since activities like torture, which might lead to a positive outcome, are not human plus they go against the essential human nature (Smith, 4).