Moral Dilemma #2 - The Mad Bomber
 

2. The Mad Bomber

A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber’s innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?



Source: Top 10 Moral Dilemmas

Torture them, but don't kill them. As long as the torture isn't doing anything life threatening to them, then torture them. Do only techniques that you have studied though, obviously you wouldn't be getting any pleasure out of the torture.

I would torture him without hesitation, as it is stated, it's a desperate situation. If it was the only other option to torture his wife though, I wouldn't do that.

This.

Can I add, surely of you have time to torture him or his wife, you have time to evacuate the people in danger :laugh:

I would be up for torturing him if he did divulge or if he did not.

Torture isn't exactly guaranteed to make him tell the truth. Still better off trying to talk to him.

Play him LMFAO tunes on a loop. That would make anyone crack. :devil::joker:

If that is torture then my neighbor has been torturing me for months, someone get Amnesty International on the phone plzz!

I'd focus on Evacuation, if you have enough time to torture someone then you have enough time to get as many people out of the danger zones as possible.

evacuate where?

Hundreds of "innocent people" versus one "innocent wife". I'd rather be responsible for her torture than to have the blood of hundreds of innocents on my hands knowing that I might have been able to prevent it. You'd have a lot more chance of getting him to tell the truth by torturing her instead of him. As the bomber is "pleading the fifth" this is obviously taking place in the USA, and I'm sure the CIA would be up to the job, I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate. And neither would I.

Why do people assume that there'd be enough time to evacuate everyone because there's time to torture someone? Torturing someone can take all of minutes to get the required information + bomb disposal time; compared to evacuating a city of say 1 million people. That's a lot of people with not that many places to go to - have you ever been stuck in a traffic jam? Yeah...


I'd torture him or the wife if it called for it, I value saving as many lives as possible in this situation regardless of the moral consequences.

I'd hate to be in this situation. But, let's face it, this situation comes up frequently in real life, and I'm quite sure torture is used.

It's hard to condone torture, but it's harder to sympathise with a person who plants bombs with the intention of killing innocent people.

So, I'd probably have to order the torture.. I couldn't do it myself though. I don't have the stomach for it. :/

Me neither but I wouldn't hesitate approving someone else doing it. The biggest dilemma would be his wife (if she was completely innocent and ignorant of the fact her husband had done it)

No, it is morally wrong to torture someone and you're no better than the bomber himself by stooping to such low levels. Torturing the man himself is one thing however, but I find people condoning the torture of his innocent wife, that has done absolutely nothing wrong and may not even be aware of what he's planning beyond disgusting.

If I were that woman, and I were tortured when I had never done any kind of bad deed in my life, and it was as a result of my husband's actions, I'd want every single person that tortured and condoned torturing me dead.

I'mn sorry but yu are wrong. torturing someone is not morally equivalent to killing someone with a bomb. why do you think that is the same thing? it's not. Torturing someone is NOT at ALL the SAME as KILLING innocent people. There is a HUGE difference. how can you say that it's the same????

Oh absolutely, she'd be insane to not want revenge - but in the heat of the moment, I would personally do whatever it takes to stop the bomb and then deal with the consequences later. Unlike this terrorist, I know what I did was wrong and would therefore take whatever punishment that came with.

Torture doesn't work, so if your only plan is to torture the information out of the suspect, then we are in a whole world of ****. If he was that committed to terror, and there was that little time, I believe any terrorist would send the police/government on a wild goose chase till the bombs exploded.

Torture is never the answer.

I don't like this one because I'm normally a member of the good old "human rights brigade" but I think if it is literally a straight choice between:

- not torturing him and hundreds of innocents dying
and
- torturing him and saving the lives of hundreds

Then I would probably have to let practicality override principles and do what is necessary to save those lives. Off the record of course :whistle:

Although in reality it wouldn't be so simple as to just torture him for a bit and suddenly have all the necessary information revealed

No to the torture, even if he was tortured there is no guarantee he would give the information needed.

I would torture him for sure, as his temporary pain and discomfort is nothing compared to the deaths of the potential victims and their families who will lose them.

Torturing his wife though is another story.. she is (presumably) an innocent woman and she doesn't deserve that kind of treatment.

Easy, you'd definitely torture them.

No sorry, I disagree entirely. If you ask me torture is actually worse than straight out murder. Out of a choice of the two I'd much rather be shot dead or blown up than tortured mercilessly for hours, days, weeks, months, years on end. I have a fear of being tortured as it happens actually, and long, drawn out pain sounds a lot worse to me than instant or near-instant death.

So no, you are wrong. And for the record the wife would count as an innocent person.

I still couldn't throw my principles out of the window, it'd take a hell of a lot of persuading to get me to do that. Plus as most people have said, there's no guarantee you'd get the information you needed anyway.

torture is not drawn out though. There are very clear rules when it comes to torture. Yur saying you'd prefer death "permanent" to torture, where it's only allowed for a few hours at a time?? really?

sorry, it's not the same at all.