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.