Ethics
...er to try to save the many. In this situation, any way to help the many who would be affected would be the moral thing to do. If a reliable informant told interrogators that torturing the maniac’s young daughter in public would make the maniac talk, then the idea should not be used first but it should also not be thrown away. As desperate times call for desperate measures, the unknown time at which the bomb will blow would create a very desperate time in which every idea to get information about the whereabouts of the bomb can not be discounted. Spock’s saying still applies to torturing the child. The best way to go about it is to threaten the maniac that his daughter will be tortured. After threatening the maniac a few times with the child torture, if the information still has not been received, then the daughter should be tortured but not in public. If that does not work, then public torture would be next. These are obviously last resorts which should be held from use until other methods of persuasion has been exhausted. This is an example where a maniac is attacking New York City. If the tables were turned, would we still see torture in the same light? Let us say that an American CIA agent has placed a nuclear bomb in Warsaw, Poland. Let us also say that this CIA agent has been captured and is threatened to be tortured for the information about the location of the bomb. First off, we would see the placing of the bomb as immoral and uncalled for. Second, we would see that the torture of our CIA agent for information as immoral also. So the question is, what is the difference between torturing the maniac and torturing the CIA agent? The difference is simple; one is someone that the American people would not care much about, while the other is a strong political figure that the American people would not want to see harmed. Morality is based on circumstance and perception. Things that would normally not be moral become very feasible options in crunch time. Also, things would seem moral to people of different background and culture than to someone of a different background and culture. Someone from Afghanistan would probably see the planting of a nuclear bomb in New York City as a blessing and a moral thing to do. Someone from The United States would see the event as an immoral and evil thing to do. Someone from Afghanistan would also see the torture of the maniac and his daughter as inhumane, unfair, and immoral. Someone from the United States would find the torture of the maniac and his daughter to not be enough pain for the maniac for what he did and what he is about to do if successful. In our light, immoral people are the ones who believe in ideas or act in ways that would go against our ideals. Since we would not plant a bomb in New York City, we would consider anyone who did to be immoral. Also, since we most likely would make someone suffer for our sake, then we would find nothing immoral about torturing the maniac and his daughter. It is obvious that the maniac does not believe in our beliefs of not harming innocent lives in a city, therefore we find him immoral. Also, the maniac's acts seem to counter our way of life and belief on life. Even language is used to show how the maniac is immoral. A maniac is one who does not follow the way of life in a particular culture. Just by placing the term "maniac" on the person who placed the bomb in the city just to refer to the person, shows that there is something wrong with the person. Something wrong with the person includes that he or she does not share the same beliefs that a particular culture shares. Placing a bomb in a city shows that the person has no regard for human life. In this particular culture, the population in general has a very high regard f...