Ethical Dilemma Abu Ghraib Abuses - Essay Example

Ethical Dilemma Abu Ghraib Abuses Introduction The motivation for this debate is the lack of responsibility of the torture undertaken at Abu Ghraib prison (Ricks 324). A number of military officials were taken before the courts while none of the personnel in the command chain was put on trial. Out of the leading five military personnel who were heading the military activities at Abu Ghraib area, only one was demoted from the command and got an official reproach. In contrast, the other military personnel escaped trial or even investigations.

In addition, no individual in the CIA or the Defense or Justice Departments has been summoned over the issues surrounding Abu Ghraib. Conversely, the individuals who have been devoted to the Bush administration have been given rewards for their attempt with medals or promotions. This paper will highlight the leader’s ethical dilemma and give a personal opinion on the actions the leader should have taken during the Abu Graib Abuses in Iraq during 2004.Kant’s categorical rule will assist in highlighting the leader’s ethical dilemma.

Firstly, the rule states that a person should assign a principle to all behaviors he develops and assess the outcome if all people act out on the basis of that principle. Secondly, the rule asserts that all human beings have a value past price. This means no individual should make use of another individual to realize a task of self-interest. Finally, all individuals in a group should deal with others as they would demand to be treated. From this perspective, it is clear that the torturous activities employed by the leaders through the prison guards did not abide by Kant’s categorical rule.

To violate a person till he breaks is not a rational, universal standard. Also, the guards used every prisoner as a way of getting information. If the leader through the guards would realize every human is valuable past price, he would not torture prisoners to get information. On the other hand, the soldiers’ activities may be perceived to be ethical. The social responsibility theory asserts that the executive is responsible to the employees. This means the soldiers who perform acts of torture are engaging in an ethical activity because they are serving the concerns of their leaders.

The leaders of the army or administration promote the inhumane treatment of Iraqi captives (Hersh 96). The soldiers associate their activities with their employers’ desire, regardless of whether the actions are ethical or unethical.In my opinion, the Abu Graib indignity cannot be ethically defended. The way the administration went about the demands was immoral and wrong. The leaders should have employed a technique of sincerely and publicly holding those involved in the torturous acts responsible for their actions.

The leaders should also have developed rules regarding prisoners’ treatment. This should have guided even the most complex cases. Moreover, the leaders the leaders should have provided a proper justification for engaging in the inhumane activities.ConclusionThere can never be justification for the torturous acts committed in Abu Graib. Nonetheless, the administration and its leaders should increase the amount of transparency to activities involving detention. The security organs cannot publicly highlight its methods when interrogating captives because it would diminish the significance of interrogation, but they should realize the usefulness of proficient publicity and allow the human rights groups observe as much as possible.

Works CitedHersh, S. M. Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib. New York: HarperCollins, 2004. Print.Ricks, T. E. Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq. New York: Penguin Press, 2006. Print.