Many would argue that ArendtÆs moral theory argues that we go around doing what we please, regardless of the consequences, because we have some higher moral knowledge that makes us know we are right. She is not. She is arguing that we are all alone in the world, and the moral code we choose to adopt cannot come from some absolute source. The only source any human can use to devise such a code is their own logic, thinking and experiences. Arendt argues that there is only thinking, or a lack of it, that affects the right or wrong of a humanÆs actions. From this view not all social

As a strategic planner for the military, my policy for torture of Iraqi prisoners to elicit information on terrorist cells would include all means of torture that would not result in maiming or death of the prisoners. While sounding harsh to civilian morals and norms, such a policy is mandated from a utilitarian perspective. A handful of men took thousands of lives and threw the New York and U.S. economy into a tailspin because of their actions on September 11, 2001. Nearly 3,000 innocent individuals were deprived their ôrightö to pursue happiness or pleasure. From the utility notion of what serves the best interests of the most numbers of people, torturing a dozen or two people in order to prevent such terrorist actions would be more than morally justified. If most individuals agree that certain actions are moral or ôrightö if they lead to the maximization of happiness and pleasure for the most people, then torturing a group of individuals to prevent minimization of happiness and pleasure for thousands or even hundreds of thousands is justified. Such moral reasoning incorporating utility has been used to take out dictators like Milosevic, responsible for untold numbers of deaths of innocent people. Such moral reasoning also applies to considering torture