1. Compare and contrast Utilitarianism and Deontology over the question of torture. Is torture a reasonable/justifiable last resort during a national security crisis? What would a Utilitarian (like Bentham)
argue? What would Kant argue? What is your opinion? When discussing your opinion, you should also
include a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of both the utilitarian and deontological positions.

- Compare and contrast Utilitarianism and Deontology over the question of torture.

Utilitarianism revolves around the concept of “the end justifies the means,” while deontology works on the concept “the end does not justify the means.” Utilitarianism is the principle that the correct form of action be taken to benefit the greatest number of people.  Deontology is defined as the area of ethics involving the responsibility, moral duty and commitment. Both utilitarianism and deontology deal with the ethics and consequences of one’s actions and behavior despite the outcome.  

- Is torture a reasonable/justifiable last resort during a national security crisis?

Torture and abusive interrogation tactics are illegal under U.S. law, international law, and international human rights treaties. Torture is prohibited under federal law, as are lesser forms of detainee abuse such as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is prohibited at all times and in all circumstances.

- What would a Utilitarian (like Bentham) argue? What would Kant argue?

A Utilitarianism such as Jeremy Bentham, he would argue that an action (or type of action) is right if it tends to promote happiness or pleasure and wrong if it tends to produce unhappiness or pain—not just for the performer of the action but also for everyone else affected by it. Kant would say that the only virtue that can be unqualifiedly good is a good will. Kant argues that a person is good or bad depending on the motivation of their actions and not on the goodness of the consequences of those actions.

- What is your opinion? When discussing your opinion, you should also include a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of both the utilitarian and deontological positions.

I agree with Bentham's argument because, broadly speaking, Bentham would first consider the outcomes of both actions and evaluate how much pleasure or pain either action will cause, while Kant would consider the action of killing someone and evaluate if the action is morally “right” or “wrong. Bentham’s argument that protecting the welfare (happiness) of the greatest number of people, I suggest, will ultimately win out because we live in an era when governments and electorates subscribe to neoliberal economic ideologies. Bentham’s greatest happiness theory will enable the business, industry and education sectors to open-up for business as normal. Of course politics and self-protection will dictate how quickly normalcy is resumed, but the need to bring happiness to the maximum number of people will ultimately determine the strategy of government because elections are determined by the greater number of voters who feel happiest, not by the greater number of voters who are morally and ethically driven as Kant's theory suggests.

Hope this helped you, if it did, please mark it as "the brainliest ." :)

1. read the following excerpt from franklin d. roosevelt's "fireside chat 19":

on the other side of the picture, we must learn also to know that guerilla warfare against the germans in, let us say serbia or norway, us; that a successful russian offensive against the germans us; and that british successes on land or sea in any part of the world strengthen our hands.

remember always that germany and italy, regardless of any formal declaration of war, consider themselves at war with the united states at this moment just as much as they consider themselves at war with britain or russia. and germany puts all the other republics of the americas into the same category of enemies. the people of our sister republics of this hemisphere can be honored by that fact.  

the true goal we seek is far above and beyond the ugly field of battle. when we resort to force, as now we must, we are determined that this force shall be directed toward ultimate good as well as against immediate evil. we americans are not destroyers — we are builders.

analyze the effectiveness of this excerpt. how does it function within the speech as a whole? how does the structure of the excerpt to convey the speech's purpose and key points? support your argument with evidence from the speech. (10 points)