In 2004, reports were made of human rights violations, including physical abuse of detainees in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq by members of the United States Army and the Central Intelligence Agency during the Iraq war. In paper 2, research the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, summarizing the facts of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal that came to light in 2004. Then assess the ethics of what occurred as follows:
• First, make a “pro” argument that the actions of the US prison guards were ethically justified, and rely on one or more of the ethical theories discussed this week to support your position.
• Then provide the counter argument, that the actions of the US prison guards were unethical and apply a different theory or theories of ethics to support that position.
• Conclude with your personal assessment of whether the actions of the US prison guards can be morally or ethically justified.
Sample Answer
The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Facts and Ethical Assessment
The Abu Ghraib prison scandal, which came to public light in April 2004, involved the systematic abuse and torture of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq by members of the U.S. Army Military Police and intelligence personnel.
Summary of Facts
The events revealed through graphic photographs and official reports exposed a pattern of non-compliant, cruel, and abusive treatment of Iraqi detainees, most of whom had not been charged with any crime.
Evidence: The primary evidence was a cache of photographs taken by the military personnel involved, which were leaked to the media (first reported by The New Yorker and 60 Minutes II).
Physical and Sexual Abuse: The abuse included physical beatings, electrocutions, stress positions (like the "pyramid" human tower), and sleep deprivation. Sexual abuse and humiliation were rampant, including forcing detainees to pose naked in sexually explicit positions, masturbate in front of guards, and wear women's underwear.
Psychological Torture: Detainees were subjected to psychological torture, including threats of violence, mock executions, and being stripped naked, hooded, and restrained.
Involvement: The investigation implicated low-ranking Military Police personnel (like those seen in the photographs) as well as military intelligence and private contractors. The U.S. Army's Taguba Report later confirmed these acts constituted systemic abuses.
High-Level Knowledge: While the soldiers in the photos were court-martialed, subsequent investigations suggested that the abusive tactics were part of a broader, authorized policy for interrogation tactics approved by higher-ranking officials seeking intelligence on the Iraqi insurgency.
Ethical Assessment: The Pro Argument (Ethically Justified)
A "pro" argument that the actions of the U.S. personnel at Abu Ghraib were ethically justified can be built using the ethical theory of Utilitarianism.
Core Theory: Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, meaning the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome or consequence. The goal is to achieve the greatest good (utility) for the greatest number of people.
Application to Abu Ghraib: Proponents could argue that the actions, though repugnant, were justified because they were necessary to extract time-sensitive, actionable intelligence that could prevent imminent harm to a far greater number of people (U.S. soldiers, Iraqi civilians, or coalition forces).
The Greater Good: The temporary suffering of a small number of alleged insurgents (detainees) is outweighed by the saving of many lives that would have been lost in bombings, ambushes, or attacks thwarted by the intelligence gained.
"Ticking Time Bomb" Scenario: This argument leans on the "ticking time bomb" scenario: if torture is the only way to find a bomb and save a city, a utilitarian framework may reluctantly justify the torture because the total net happiness (or saved lives) is maximized. Therefore, the guards' actions, if viewed as necessary steps to protect thousands, were ethically the "right" choice under this framework.
Ethical Assessment: The Counter Argument (Unethical)
The counter argument—that the actions of the U.S. personnel were unethical—is strongly supported by the ethical theory of Deontology.
Core Theory: Deontology is a duty-based theory (most famously associated with Immanuel Kant) that holds that the morality of an action should be based on whether the action itself is right or wrong under a clear set of rules or duties, regardless of the consequences.
The Categorical Imperative: Kant's key principle is the Categorical Imperative, which states, in part, that one must treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.
Application to Abu Ghraib:
Violation of Duty and Rules: The actions at Abu Ghraib violated clear rules, including the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Military Code of Conduct, which strictly prohibit torture, cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity. Deontology holds that following these duties is the absolute moral requirement.
Treating Humans as a Means: By torturing and humiliating the detainees, the personnel were explicitly treating them merely as a means (a tool for extracting information) rather than as persons deserving of inherent human dignity and respect (an end). This is a direct violation of the Categorical Imperative and thus, the acts are categorically unethical, regardless of whether they yielded life-saving intelligence.
Personal Assessment
In my personal assessment, the actions of the U.S. prison guards and personnel at Abu Ghraib cannot be morally or ethically justified.
While the Utilitarian argument provides a compelling but cold logic for extreme situations, it is dangerously easy to abuse. The facts of Abu Ghraib show that the abuse was not isolated to a "ticking time bomb" scenario but was systematic, widespread, and primarily designed to degrade and humiliate, often without a clear, immediate intelligence goal.
The deontological perspective holds stronger moral ground here:
Dignity is Absolute: The foundational principle of human dignity and the absolute prohibition against torture cannot be contingent on a potential positive outco