Ethical/moral Dilemma #2

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?

Votes	Answer
12	No, I do not agree
11	Yes, I agree to the torture of the bomber ONLY
5	I would use any and ALL means to extract the required information
2	Other

User	Comment
labjog	posted 30-Dec-2007 1:29pm I might agree to the torture of him, I would leave his poor wife out of it. If he's that cold hearted I doubt it would effect him, besides he's a physco, he's probably put her through hell already hmmmmmmmmm maybe she would do the torturing
Amanda	posted 30-Dec-2007 1:32pm Part of me wants to say to go ahead and torture him, but it seems so wrong. Why not evacuate the area where the bombs are? Either way, his wife should be left alone.
JessicaWoman99	posted 30-Dec-2007 2:01pm Only to the bomber and not his wife leave her alone , just torture the heck out of him he is the one
dab	posted 30-Dec-2007 2:06pm The problem with hypotheticals like this is that they don't match reality. In the hypothetical, we're told for a fact that this madman has planted the bombs. In reality, you wouldn't KNOW that. Yet you have to act in the absence of absolute knowledge. So my answer in a real situation would depend greatly on how strongly I thought I was right that he'd planted bombs. And if I did agree to the torture, it would still be wrong. I just might be willing to do wrong in order to save lives.
LJD	posted 30-Dec-2007 5:48pm Toughy. I, however, question how "innocent" a wife is if she is connected to the bomber, who is to say she is "innocent? I say use all means to extract the information. This would be a real test of how much the bomber loves his wife.
southernyankee	posted 30-Dec-2007 6:07pm Yes, but ONLY the bomber. And I would make it easy for him to sue the government later if it turns out he didn't know where the bomb was in the first place. I would also take into account that testimony from tortured people is largely useless since they might lie just for you to stop. A better approach would be force them to consume alcohol / drugs against their will as a means of getting information that just plain torture.
dilfreak	posted 30-Dec-2007 6:08pm Yes I would agree to torture the bomber only. His wife should not have to suffer for his crimes. But yes... Torture him until he DIES!! Get the info!!
labjog	(reply to southernyankee) posted 30-Dec-2007 6:54pm > Yes, but ONLY the bomber. And I would make it easy for him to sue > the government later if it turns out he didn't know where the bomb > was in the first place. > > I would also take into account that testimony from tortured people > is largely useless since they might lie just for you to stop. A better > approach would be force them to consume alcohol / drugs against their > will as a means of getting information that just plain torture. Good point!
Crayons	posted 30-Dec-2007 8:33pm Torture, yes. Definitely. I don't even see why it's not legal here, when in reasonable situations. Many lives are at stake!
gambler	posted 30-Dec-2007 8:39pm I would use any and ALL means to extract the required information
cloudhugger	posted 30-Dec-2007 8:54pm No! I could not agree to that! I would use sodium pentathol (sp) or something else other than torture, good grief, sounds like something the bad guys would do.
RGirl	posted 30-Dec-2007 9:56pm It's ok to torture both in need be but only as long as I don't have to do the torturing and have plausible deniability.
justjulie	posted 31-Dec-2007 6:53am hard to believe that the mad bomber would have a non-mad wife
jettles	posted 31-Dec-2007 7:58am don't agree
bill	posted 31-Dec-2007 9:21am never turture
Biggles	posted 31-Dec-2007 11:42am I don't think torture is ever morally acceptable - and there's no reason to think that information obtained via torture is going to be reliable anyway. What if he isn't your bomber at all? He'd say anything to make the torture stop and you could spend hours searching somewhere on the basis of that information.
FauxLo	posted 31-Dec-2007 3:02pm FoxTurtle thinks if it has been confirmed (without a doubt) that he planted the bombs, then any means necessary that are required to extract the information are acceptable, so...
Iseult	posted 31-Dec-2007 8:06pm Torture the bomber. Do it slowly and painfully until he admits he's a witch.
kcthedog	posted 31-Dec-2007 8:16pm Two questions here. I would peel the bombers skin while he was consciences off his scrawny bones until he talked, but I would not touch his innocent wife.
Enheduanna	posted 1-Jan-2008 11:53am No, I don't think it's OK to use torture. Find another way. And definitely don't torture his wife, although asking her if she knows where the bombs are would be fine.
Melf	posted 1-Jan-2008 4:17pm Hell no.
LindaH	(reply to LJD) posted 2-Jan-2008 2:37pm 'Guilt by association' is a presumptive fallacy.
LJD	(reply to LindaH) posted 3-Jan-2008 2:51am Whatever it be, it would be a tough decision. Sometimes there are tough decisions to be made, to save innocent people.
Amanda	(reply to LJD) posted 3-Jan-2008 4:52pm Your answers never cease to amaze me.
LJD	(reply to Amanda) posted 4-Jan-2008 7:25pm If it would mean the difference of hundreds of lives saved, I say put the guilt on the bombers head.....let him answer to God, and his children for their mother's death, with his unwillingness to talk. As I've said this is a toughy.
Amanda	(reply to LJD) posted 4-Jan-2008 8:35pm I was talking about you wondering how innocent the wife is. Just because someone is married to a criminal doesn't mean they are. I think it's really sad that you think that way. Quilt by association has never seemed right to me.
LindaH	(reply to Amanda) posted 4-Jan-2008 8:42pm It's right along the same lines as "Birds of a feather flock together". Being a person who has hung out with all kinds of people, that phrase is a total put-off to me. I was told as a teen "Don't hang out with smokers, because then people think you are one of them." Imagine that same logic applied to adults. (WTF?)
LJD	(reply to Amanda) posted 4-Jan-2008 9:59pm There are times one must make hard decisions, tough ones. Much depends on the love the bomber has for his wife. Depending where the bomb is, if it were me, I'd demand all people leave the area, many variables to this, also I'd bring in bomb sniffing dogs. What kind of time element do we have? Too many variables.
Amanda	(reply to LindaH) posted 5-Jan-2008 12:23pm I think it's sad that people think like that.
Amanda	(reply to LJD) posted 5-Jan-2008 12:24pm That's not even what I'm talking about. I was talking about your comment that questioned how innocent his wife is. But, whatever.
LJD	(reply to Amanda) posted 6-Jan-2008 4:13pm I feel there is an element of guilt by association. If she even had a whiff of what he does, or planned to do, she holds some guilt. I feel the same about mafia wives....they have to know where their bread and butter come from...via husbands.
LindaH	(reply to LJD) posted 6-Jan-2008 4:19pm Mafia wives are a bit different than wives of random bombers. Since the mafia tends to totally dominate the lives of it's members, it would be kind of difficult to be close to one (as in marriage) and not know they are part of the Mob. A random bomber on the other hand might be able to go about his plans without his wife even knowing. Huge difference. An all-encompassing lifestyle as opposed to one sinister plot.
Amanda	(reply to LJD) posted 6-Jan-2008 5:36pm I think that a lot of times women don't have the information that some people seem to think they do. I know this from personal experience. Some men are able to keep their girlfriends and/or wives out of the loop. You can't just assume that someone knows something just because they are close to the person doing something.
LJD	(reply to LindaH) posted 6-Jan-2008 8:52pm But, I would hope that I'd know what my husband's thoughts were. As I've said, it would be a tough call to make decisions such as the one in question.
LJD	(reply to Amanda) posted 6-Jan-2008 8:53pm I understand....but under better circumstances, I would hope a wife would know her husband better.
Amanda	(reply to LJD) posted 6-Jan-2008 10:03pm Under better circumstances, there wouldn't be a bomber in the first place.
LJD	(reply to Amanda) posted 6-Jan-2008 11:51pm You have that right!
robsmith82	posted 10-Apr-2008 8:48am Nothing should be out of bounds here. Get that info! Have you not seen 24?!?!

Last
Advanced_Stats

If you'd like to vote and/or comment on this survey, please Sign On

Link this survey: http://surveycentral.org/survey/28480.html

Hits: 1 today (5 in the last 30 days)

Last	Type	Created	Category	Creator	Sort	Votes	Hides	Rating
Last	multiple	29-Dec-2007	hypothetical question	gambler	by votes	42	5	64.1%