MORaL DILEMMAS #1

6/1/2013

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?

12 Comments

Elena Evseeva

6/2/2013 05:33:25 am

I agree with officials about torturing terrorists to make them speak. I do not see any breakage of morals. Is that moral to kill so many people by blowing up the streets in the city? Also, torturing does not mean that the terrorist is going to die. There are different kinds of torturing and the terrorist can give up very quick. In any case, officials do not aim to kill him by torturing since it's in their interests to keep him alive because he's the source of information. The terrorist may die due to his health problems and just kill himself during torturing but the ways of torturing were examined and explored by specialists so the per cent of anything like that happening is very low and it's worth it due to the amount of innocent people may dieIn extreme situations goverment should apply some kind of torture to those terrorists because that's the only way in trying to prevent the death of hundred, thousands of people including children!
On the other hand, torturing terrorist's wife is not morally justifiable. She is just human who didn't commite any bad thing and she does not have to pay for her husband's stupidity. It may make him speak but it can not be proved. Many terrorists are so "empty" that they don't have any feelings even for their nearest. Torturing his wife may end up very sad for the women and goverment may kill a human and not get any information as well as not having any response for her life.

Felipe Mindermann

6/2/2013 02:22:54 pm

I think that a torture would be justified in this case. There is always the question of justice, and in the case of many life's agains a single one, the right answer is always more. In this case the addressed person does not die, and although torture is a horrible and cruel way of finding truth it is sometimes the only one. Normally I would suggest another way, but as in this case time is also setting a limit, for the sake of many life's including children this is reasonable. Torture has been used since ages in critical cases, and in extreme situations like this extreme means are necessary. But there is an issue in this concept where I do not agree. He did something wrong and should be forced to the truth while his innocent wife has nothing to do with this case. She should be held out of this case, and not be connected with this. It is not morally justifiable, and the terrorist should be forced to answer without his wife. But if it comes to the point that nothing works, we have the one-to-many scenario again, where the wife's torture stands against the life's of innocent. Then, and only in this case, it is justifiable.

Hanne Grotle Nore

6/4/2013 09:18:50 am

In this particular incident I think It is justifiable to torture the bomber to obtain the information needed to save the hundreds of people in danger , even though it is illegal. The opportunity cost is much larger in this case than simply following the rules. The government would act in accordance to the society´s benefit. It is justifiable because the bomber´s actions are not humane or justifiable in any sense. The athorothies would not kill this man, because their incentive is simply to recieve the information about the bombs.
Yet It would not be justifiable to torture the bomber´s wife, unless she has participated in the bombing. She is only an innocent human being that deserves no harm happen to her. Even though it is for the society´s best to get this information, it would not be morally right to torture this innocent woman.

Alicia Ordóñez Bárez

6/5/2013 12:53:54 am

Yes, I agree. As the oficial said, it is a desesperate situation where the life of hundreds of inocent people is in danger. It is true that torture would be illegal but also, depending on the situation we should evaluate this posibility. We are doing it in order to save people’s life. Lets think it this way: If we have tried it in all the possible and legal ways and we haven’t obtained any useful response this man will comit a crime, which is to kill hundreds of inocent people. Don’t you think it is better to do an illegal thing in order to do something good for the humanity, save lifes, rather than let that man commit the crime, do something illegal and kill people? I would agree with the oficial in order to do whatever is in our hands to save their lifes.
Another way to obtained the information needed to save their lifes is to torture his wife. Well, I am don’t completly agree with this, in fact I wouldn’t even know what to do if they prupose me this. However, I would start thinking about the situation we are in and I would probably consider that this option will be a possible way of saving people’s live. At the same time, we have to think in his wife as a normal woman who hasn’t done anything wrong, I mean, she is not the one who put these bombs, she is just a woman married to this man. Anyway, I would also torture her eventhough I think it won’t be morally correct because in this case we are playing with the emotions and violence in order to make someone talk.
In conclusion, I would do it in order to save those inocent people.

Saperthan Sivasuthan

6/5/2013 03:31:52 pm

I agree that torturing the bomber would be the right decision in this ethical issue, because this madman has threatened several people’s life, and from ethics it is a wrong decision to kill somebody. Therefore, I totally agree that torturing this bomber would be a better choice, if the man refuses to say anything.

Torturing is a way to get information from a person without the person is been killed, but we can also deduce torturing into different kinds. In this case, I would start torturing the bomber with a level from less painful to more painful every time he refuses to say something.

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?

I wouldn’t torture the mad bomber’s innocent wife, because she has nothing to do with this issue. Moreover, if we morally justify this issue, the wife might never have known that his husband had planned the bomb and if you are in her perspective, is it right that you are been torture for somebody’s mistake?

Therefore, I can disagree that we shouldn’t torture the innocent wife. In spite of the fact that the wife is innocent, we can punish the madman with different types of tortures until he finally admits where he had hidden the bomb.

Dennis Kim

6/6/2013 12:07:47 am

I agree that we can torture terrorist if hundreds of people are in danger. If it moral for him to place bombs, it's moral to torture him. In my opinion the cost of people is higher than cost of the terrorist. It's illegal to torture the bomber's wife unless she didn't participate in placing bombs.
For instance if bomber doesn't want to say anything, government won't kill that guy beause he knows where are the bombs. There is the posibility that torturing will help to find the bombs.
In my conclusion it is justified to torture the bomber

Tu Hoang

6/6/2013 01:19:51 am

If I would be the officer I think I would let the police torture the mad man. Even if he refuses ti his 5th amendment he does not have the right because he could let 100s of people die.For me this person does not have this specific rights anymore because he broke so many laws and amendments on the same time. No one has the right to bring 100s of people in danger and kill them with bombs. Even if the wife is innocent she is the only thing that could save 100s of lifes.
But we should first torture the mad man until we try to torture the wife because caused the bombs. To torture the wife is the last thing we should do to save so many lives.

Sabina Lenskaya

6/9/2013 06:08:50 am

There is always a way to avoid violence. However, sometimes it is necessary to apply violence in order to prevent the consequences of another violent act. In the case of the madman, who intents to harm a great number of people the torture should be justifiable. At the same time, there is always another way to influence his decision to tell the truth. Since he does not give up the locations of the bombs he gives an incentive for the authorities to apply violence towards him, which is probably his aim. If that is the case and torture is what he wants, then refusing to do this will make him speak. The lawyer would probably suggest him to confess the locations of the bombs in order to benefit his client’s interests. Thus, the game would be over, and the madman would not think it is exiting anymore, thus there is a possibility he gives up the information. In case he does not, his wife can be a way to persuade his decisions. Since she is innocent, she would probably like to help in order to save lots of lives. There is no need to apply torture towards her, but to make it seem as if it is applied. If she agrees to deceive her husband she would help the case and many people. If not, then she whether loves her husband too much, whether she is not innocent. In case she loves him to extent to sacrifice all the possible victims, the authority should suggest a compromise in order to benefit her husband on the trial if she helps them to find out the information about bombs. But if the woman is guilty, and if there is no other way to persuade one of them, then the torture is justifiable in order to save many lives.

Anmol Patel

6/14/2013 12:24:46 am

Taking into consideration the lives at stake as a result of the bombs, the act of torturing, although illegal, could be the only possible means to save the lives of innocent people. At that point in time, the most vital issue at hand would be to diffuse those bombs. Of course if the officials had enough time and yet chose to resort to illegal means that would be unjustifiable, however, since the bombs are scheduled to go off in a short time, it appears that they had no reasonable alternative. At this point I would like to point out the distinction between torturing and killing. Torturing is an extreme means however, it does take ones life. Hence, if torturing the wife were the only way to make the mad bomber talk, I would support it. I strongly believe that if torturing one innocent person could save hundreds of innocent lives, the illegal act could be justified. But what if the information that the bomber provides is inaccurate? What if the bombs go off before the authorities can act? Such questions will remain unanswered however a desperate situation like the one described above would require the officials to go above and beyond the powers vested in them and at least try their level best to save innocent lives.

Benjamin Oh

6/18/2013 02:56:17 am

In this situation, the dilemma that we have is the choice between lives and legality. The officer has to do illegal behaviors so to protect a lot of lives in the area that bombs are set. Because he is a police officer who is in charge of dealing with illegal incidents, he personally would feel ambivalent whether he has to save people's lives or protect the law.

If I were him, I will definitely torture him to know the locations. Even though it's illegal, the behavior of suspect, planting the bombs, is also illegal and is so dangerous that a lot of people are jeopardized. Therefore, I don't think the suspect has a right to be protected because he already ignore other's rights. This can be some degree of revenge. Also, if he tortures the mad man, he would not die, but if the bombs are exploded, tons of people would be killed. Because personally lives of individuals are the most valuable factor that I consider, I would rather torture him to save lives of others.

Yuri

6/18/2013 10:06:02 am

In this situation. Yes, I agree. that torturing the bomber would be the right decision in this ethical issue, because this madman has threatened several people’s life, and from ethics it is a wrong decision to kill somebody. Therefore, I totally agree that torturing this bomber would be a better choice, if the man refuses to say anything.

I think tutoring is kind of the best way to gain information from a people without injured or killed. It's definatley that we can also use less torturing into different kinds. In this case, I would start torturing the bomber with a level from less painful to more painful every time he refuses to say something.
I think I won't torture the mad bomber’s innocent wife, because she is innocent, she has nothing linked to this issue. Moreover, if we morally justify this issue, the wife might never have known that his husband had planned the bomb and if you are in her perspective, is it right that you are been torture for somebody’s mistake,consider this
Therefore, I can disagree that we shouldn’t torture the innocent wife. In spite of the fact that the wife is innocent, we can punish the madman with different types of tortures until he finally admits where he had hidden the bomb.

simon berry

6/18/2013 09:07:37 pm

In fact it is really a good idea to save the problem because we need race against time. In the limited time, this way can exert unbelievable power but I think more humanism will be better because we are human and we have the feeling about everything. The person who make the wrong direction or make false action comes from their own reason. And their special experience or background will be the problem to affect them so try to make them feel power or fair will make them try to change their idea to make the right way. So, I believe more humanism will be better so much.

MORaL DILEMMAS #1

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories