Kantian Duty-Based Ethics

Presently, and in the past, different views concerning how nations should treat terrorists and prisoners of war. Specifically, whether one upholds utilitarianism, Kantian duty-based ethics, virtue ethics, and Christian ethics, he or she have interesting views regarding the treatment of terrorists and prisoners of war. First, utilitarianism believes in the greater good for everyone. Politicians and economists have upheld this view. Those who uphold this view believe that they should anything to protect the majority, although it may badly affect the majority. For instance, if one has to break a promise that he or she made to a friend so that he or she may ultimately contribute in a good fashion to the majority, he or she would break that promise. Furthermore, in a larger scale, if the United States, for example, has to mistreat a group that is a minority so that the majority may have the good. Now, regarding the treatment of terrorists and prisoners of war, utilitarianists would disregard how the terrorists felt or whether their
That is, out of regard to duty, one must act morally. He also states that one must treat people as ends, not just means. Therefore, Kant believes in a full human rights’ perspective. In his view, people should not deprive rights of other humans, in any case. People should respect the rights of other people, according to Kant, even those who are terrorists or prisoners of war. Virtue ethics states that if one ultimately intended to do well, in spite of, for instance, breaking a law, he or she is moral. If one has a virtuous reason to drive, for example, pass the speed limit, according to virtue ethics, he or she does well. It also works vice verse: if one desires to do an immoral act but actually does a moral act, he or she is still immoral. Hence, if one desires to bring peace, an act that appears moral, by harshly punishing a terrorist or prisoners of war, he or she is