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 bmbs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fift amendment right agains 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. So you agree? If you do, would it also be morallu justifiable to torture the mas bomber's innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?"

I think that they should try to not do anything illegal because if they do something illegal then it will bring big consequenses.

First of all, when you're uder presure like torture then you are able to say anything just to get rid of your missery. So the information we get with the help of torture does not have to be reliable. This can lead to a lot of innocent people get tortured and then you're trying to fight terrorism with false information.

According to the Golden Rule, whe should treat others like we self would like to be treated. If we torture the the terrorist then the organization who is behinf him will get even more angry and that could lead to even bigger attacks and even more people would die.

If they would do something illegal, even if it would help to save a lots of lives, then they would still get a lot of bad publicity. The media doesn't care about that's right or wrong. They just want to sell more copies.

They shouldn't cross the line and torture, even if that means that innocent people would die. You have to look at it from a bigger distance and realize your action affects.