Deontology Vs Utilitarianism

According to the author of Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions, A.F. Holmes (2007), says ethics is about the good in which our values and virtues cultivate, and what is right in which our moral duties may be. So, say if there is a terrorist the security forces have a prisoner, who is holding vital information that the US needs to keep from having any more attacks, should torturing be allowed? Looking at it from a utilitarianism ethic view, a utilitarian is more concerned with helping the majority. If this known terrorist has vital information that can possible save hundreds maybe even thousands of people, then torturing is necessary. The mind frame of a utilitarian may feel that if a prisoner is suffering and in a lot of pain then he will confess or give
Deontology is a kind of theory that regards choices that morally are required, permitted, or forbidden. According to Holmes, Kant’s formulation is “always treat persons as ends and not just as means” however, it is not sufficient (2007, pg. 63). In other words, someone that adhere to the Kantian duty-based ethic. They feel if it is a maxim, to torture the prisoner then that is what they would do without feeling any remorse, to them they are morally doing what they feel is by the rules. In having moral matters, we can have mixed motives, wherein, we feel our true intentions are justified. The next form of ethic is the virtue ethic. Virtues affect moral decisions, they can influence options we consider, even rules that we may follow (Holms, 2007, pg.133). The virtuous will lean more to their good habits, so when it comes to maybe torturing someone, their moral character can influence their decision on how to treat them. Their moral character may not feel that torture is the best option. A virtuous ethic person may base their decision on more of their personal behavior and how they may feel about that person being