Which Ethical Theory Best address this?

[sethyoufree]

Which Ethical Theory gives the morally best action to take in this scenario?

 

A terrorist threatens to explode bombs in crowded areas of LA and SF (killing possibly tens or even hundreds of thousands of people). The authorities have a video link to him. His unrealistic demands are- a presidential announcement of an immediate withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, and immediate imposition by Congress of sharia law in the US. His only son is in the US and in federal custody, but says he knows nothing of his fathers plans. You are in charge of Him, and a CIA official suggests opening a video link showing the terrorist his son being tortured until he reveals the bomb locations and how to defuse them (which would be illegal). It is up to you: what ought to be done (what is morally the best thing to do)?

 

From virtue Ethics: I think the argument would be something like...

 

1. Given virtue ethics (the four tests for determining morally virtuous acts)

 

2. Any act that proves virtuous by the four tests is a moral act

 

3. I am qualified for the role, since I am “the person in charge”

 

4. Allowing the torture would be socially valued and valuable, because it would save the lives of many civilians

 

5. Allowing the torture would cause me to become a hero, by stopping the terrorist

 

6. Allowing the torture would be exactly what my role model would do

 

7. So, Allowing the torture would be a moral act

 

Conclusion: Allowing the torture would be morally the best thing to do

What about social contract ethics? or another ethical theory?

[Mr Skeptic]

So things that are wrong in some circumstances could be morally right under unusual circumstances?

[Severian]

No. Torturing an innocent would be morally wrong under all circumstances.

 

Note that that doesn't mean I wouldn't do it. But I think it is important that we realise that some of the things we feel forced to do in special circumstances are indeed immoral.

[Dak]

Which Ethical Theory gives the morally best action to take in this scenario?

 

how would you measure 'morally best'? i would assume that each ethical school would descide that it's own answre is morally the best.

 

from a practicle pov, the video link would just be recruiting ammo for the terrorists. and it would be recruiting ammo because, imo, it would be an example of the US doing something barbaric and morally wrong. not to mention that your allies would have pressure on them to withdraw support. and, anyway, even if it works you'll just get threatened again later, and this time you won't have their kid. better to just let them bomb you now and shrug it off, show them that you won't be cowed, then move on.

[Phi for All]

Conclusion: Allowing the torture would be morally the best thing to do

What about social contract ethics? or another ethical theory?

Morals aside, your conclusion is flawed. There is no guarantee that seeing his son tortured will force him to reveal the bombs locations. It may even make him more intractable since you've just shown how low you can go.

[mooeypoo]

Which Ethical Theory gives the morally best action to take in this scenario?

 

A terrorist threatens to explode bombs in crowded areas of LA and SF (killing possibly tens or even hundreds of thousands of people). The authorities have a video link to him. His unrealistic demands are- a presidential announcement of an immediate withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, and immediate imposition by Congress of sharia law in the US. His only son is in the US and in federal custody, but says he knows nothing of his fathers plans. You are in charge of Him, and a CIA official suggests opening a video link showing the terrorist his son being tortured until he reveals the bomb locations and how to defuse them (which would be illegal). It is up to you: what ought to be done (what is morally the best thing to do)?

 

From virtue Ethics: I think the argument would be something like...

 

1. Given virtue ethics (the four tests for determining morally virtuous acts)

 

2. Any act that proves virtuous by the four tests is a moral act

 

3. I am qualified for the role, since I am “the person in charge”

 

4. Allowing the torture would be socially valued and valuable, because it would save the lives of many civilians

 

5. Allowing the torture would cause me to become a hero, by stopping the terrorist

 

6. Allowing the torture would be exactly what my role model would do

 

7. So, Allowing the torture would be a moral act

 

Conclusion: Allowing the torture would be morally the best thing to do

What about social contract ethics? or another ethical theory?

 

I think that you are ignoring one very very important detail: Everything we know about the suicide bombers (such as, for example, that they're sending their own sons and daughters to explode or serve as human shield.. look at Iraq for reference, and I'll try to find other references to put here). Even if not "ALL OF THEM" do it, some of them do, so the very very important question to add to this dilemma is -- Will it WORK ? Will the torture of his son actually work in preventing this terrorist from blowing himself up?

 

I think that this is very important to decide on ethical action; if we know for a fact that this will work (if we can ever know anything for a fact) then it's different than if this is only "possible".. and "how much" is it possible? The odds are 20 percent? Then my answer would be different than if the odds are 90 percent...

 

Anyways.. that's one point I wanted to make.

 

But in any case, I was thinking that there's also Kant's theory, which, very generally, states that you cannot use another person for the case of 'the end justifies the means'; you COULD kill someone if he is "collateral damage", even if you know it in advance (for instance, if you would blow up that man's appartment as retaliation, and his son is due home from school at the same time?) but actually killing - or torturing - the kid intentionally, would be wrong.

 

I am not sure, btw, that I agree with Kant on this one (or that I managed to translate his theory to our current case.. anyone who knows better, please correct me if I'm wrong) but I think that's probably a decent presentation of another option.

 

 

Also (and this is a VERY free interpretation of the text, I think) Rousseaux defined his freedom as possible to "forcefully convince others to be free", so I would *think* that he might approve of this torture.. his theory on the General Will and the Will of All may fit in, but I may need to re-read the text... just a thought, though.

 

~moo

 

P.S:

 

Another point is -- what are the alternatives, and what are their odds to success? There are always alternatives; better and worse in reality. This question would look entirely different (and the answers would too, probably) if you knew, for instance, that it is possible to:

- Send S.W.A.T teams to capture the terrorist without him exploding the bombs.

- Find the bombs using a geiger count device, possibly in time to prevent the explosion

- confuse the bomber by showing him a fake television report of the president filling up his demands.

 

The only real question is how plausible are these options with their odds to success? If the first one, for instance, and then you have a dilemma of weighing the odds. The question of Social value (your 4th) may increase with this option, even though it has much LESS odds at success.. so your dilemma grows.

 

In short, i think we should remember that reality is far from perfect; that's why imho arguments about morality are always valid. There's no "definitive" answer.. the argument and debate should ALWAYS be considered, depending on the circumstances.

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

I think the proper answer then is such:

Torturing the kid is morally wrong.

Allowing lots of people to die when you could have prevented it is even more morally wrong.

Hence, if faced with the choice I would choose the lesser evil.

 

As mooeypoo said, in the real world you can expect countless alternatives so it is not clear cut.

[mooeypoo]

Kant would say that using an innocent bystander (the kid) to save others for the price of his own life is wrong.

 

So I think it's more than just "torturing a kid". If this was his older brother we may ahve been less "emotional" about it, but it would still get the same answer (at least according to Kant's principle, which I *usually* agree with).

 

But yeah, it's hard to make clear-cut non-negotiable 'absolutes' in arguments of Morality. That's the entire point of morality...

 

~moo

[revprez]

No. Torturing an innocent would be morally wrong under all circumstances.

 

Note that that doesn't mean I wouldn't do it. But I think it is important that we realise that some of the things we feel forced to do in special circumstances are indeed immoral.

 

Seems a theory of ethics which places a premium on ethical choice yet admits that circumstances can constrain men into unsavory action should either make allowance for such coercion or fail all together.

[Fred56]

Allowing the torture would be socially valued and valuable, because it would save the lives of many civilians

Ahem. I'm sorry but I can't see how you got to this conclusion from this premise:

a CIA official suggests opening a video link showing the terrorist his son being tortured until he reveals the bomb locations and how to defuse them

Why the assumption that the father's going to cave in because he can see his son being tortured (presumably for real)?

[mooeypoo]

I'm confused. I am almost certain this quote of mine is not me saying something it's me quoting the frst OP, but I would be happy if you could give the NUMBER of the post so I can check out what I said in the full context.

[iNow]

I am almost certain this quote of mine is not me saying something it's me quoting the frst OP.

 

As well you should be, as that's exactly what happened. Fred sometimes gets confused. It's not your fault.

[mooeypoo]

Actually, I think there's a fault in the system as well.. if you quote someone quoting someone else, you end up with 1 quote.. (like.. if I would have quoted your post, I'd get the part of "originally posted by mooeypoo" gone, and as if you were the one saying it all..). It didn't used to be like this..

 

Anyways, no problems, let's just try to quote properly -- as in link to the original post where the quote is taken from - so we can have things in context

 

~moo

[Fred56]

Which Ethical Theory gives the morally best action to take in this scenario?

 

A terrorist threatens to explode bombs in crowded areas of LA and SF (killing possibly tens or even hundreds of thousands of people). The authorities have a video link to him. His unrealistic demands are- a presidential announcement of an immediate withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan' date=' and immediate imposition by Congress of sharia law in the US. His only son is in the US and in federal custody, but says he knows nothing of his fathers plans. You are in charge of Him, and a [b']CIA official suggests[/b] opening a video link showing the terrorist his son being tortured until he reveals the bomb locations and how to defuse them (which would be illegal). It is up to you: what ought to be done (what is morally the best thing to do)?

Sorry, wrong person, is sethyoufree there, somewhere perhaps (it was kinda early here when I posted the first)?

How does the father seeing his son being tortured guarantee that he will "reveal the bomb locations and how to defuse them "?