Hypothetically...

So, I HATE hypothetical questions, like REALLY, REALLY HATE them!!  In my not-so-favorite-philosophy class this semester, we've encountered the topic of ethics and morals.  The following is the scenario I had to reply to for this weeks discussion board forum.  I am really curious to know your opinion and how you would respond - I included my response for you to read too!  Let your thoughts flow, I can't wait to read them!

 To Torture or Not to Torture?

You are a federal agent working for the Department of Homeland Security’s Counter-Terrorist Team (CTT).  Part of your duties involves the investigation of terrorist activities and the interrogation of suspected terrorists.  In recent weeks, the CTT has been investigating evidence that a large-scale terrorist attack is imminent in a major metropolitan area of the United States.  The threat level is very high and sources have confirmed that a major disaster is certain.  Until recently, CTT has not been able to discover the details of the attack including the city that is going to be targeted.

You just had a major breakthrough, however.  In a raid on a suspected terrorist cell group, a number of high level terrorist leaders have been arrested.  During their arrests, you have uncovered important details about the attack.   You discover that a thermo-nuclear weapon has been smuggled into the country and is planted in a major US city.  Though you don’t know the precise day or time of its detonation, the evidence indicates that it will be soon. 

In an effort to get more information, you are assigned to interrogate the leader of the terrorist cell.  You have been authorized to use whatever means necessary to achieve your goal.  After hours of interrogation you have learned little.  He has confirmed that there is a nuclear bomb and that it will go off very soon.  In fact, he has boasted about it, but he has refused to tell you where it is located.  You can tell he is resolved not to reveal its location and no amount of pain you inflict on him will get him to change his mind.

However, along with capturing the terrorist, you have also captured his family, including his seven-year-old daughter.  While you are convinced he can withstand torture himself, you are also convinced that if you torture his daughter in front of him he will break down in time to tell you the location of the nuclear device.  While you are not certain of these two facts, your experience in interrogation tells you that there is an extremely high degree of probability that this will be successful in time to keep the bomb from exploding.  You simply do not have time to seek another alternative. However, you cannot fake the torture of the girl – he will not be convinced unless he actually sees you torture her and hears her screams. 

You bring the daughter into the room and strap her into a chair.  You light a cigarette lighter and prepare to hold the flame against her skin.

In approximately 250 words, write what you think is the morally appropriate response to the situation. You are not allowed to alter this scenario in any manner. Be sure to offer the reasons for your actions.  In your response, you may not change the scenario.

MY REPLY

 I’ve gone back and forth on this a few times and am still not sure where I stand:  on one hand you have the life of an innocent 7 year old girl who doesn’t deserve to be tortured for something her father is doing, yet how many lives are at stake verses the torture (which could amount to something small) of one person, albeit a child?  The book mentions cultural relativism, and how our “moral practices vary with and depend on human needs and social conditions” (p19).  So, under this situation when the lives of a major portion of the population are at stake, it seems that this would be a practical application of a moral practice. But, does it change because we are now involving a child? Would there even be a question if we were questioning his 7-year old son? What about his wife or brother?  At what point is the line drawn?  The diversity thesis discusses that “moral practices and beliefs do in fact vary from culture to culture and at different times in history, and none are universal” (p19).  There isn’t mention of the race of this particular terrorist, but certain societies in the Middle East place no value in women, let alone daughters.  How am I to be sure that this man will crack if I torture his daughter?  Is he “Americanized” enough to place value on his daughter so that only burning her arm will cause him to crack or will his cultural teaching or perhaps reasoning for his bombing outweigh the value of his daughter? 

I think all in all, I could not torture the daughter and it may be because I am so far away from the position of the CTT that I could not imagine being put in that situation.  Maybe, working in that environment and truly understanding the risks and responsibilities of my job, I would choose differently.  I could choose to begin burning the child in a place that would not be as life-altering physically, such as the bottom of her feet.  But as a mother and Christian, I would hope that no member of our government would choose to torture a helpless child and do anything and everything in their power to get the information a different way. 

So... what would you do/say???