Niteshift

With the blessing of the admins, I thought I'd see if we could have some fun with situational ethics.

The rules are simple: 1) I am not taking sides. My role will be devils advocate in this. If I challenge a position or ask questions, it is not because I disagree (or agree), but to get you to explain and support your position. Please refrain from arguing directly with me, because I won't be arguing back. (Which will be hard enough for me, so help me out will ya )

2) Most of your questions about the scenario will be answered in the narrative. If you need further info to make a decision, just ask.

The object here is to see how YOU think, not how a bunch of links or editorials think. This is all about YOU and how you view your ethics.

We will start with Scenario #1, then, later, scenario #2 will appear and we can see how ethics may or may not change when the situation is altered and brought onto a smaller scale.



Scenario 1:

A terrorist group has planted a nuclear device in the center of a large US city. Several members of the group were located, but tried to shoot it out with the police. 1 is in custody unharmed. The bomb has been located, but the bomb squad tells you that it is equipped with anti-tamper switches and that attempting to disarm it would almost certainly detonate it. There is not enough time to evacuate even 25% of the population. Nuclear experts estimate that approximately 100,000 people will be killed immediately or die within months due to radiation poisoning.

You are tasked to interrogate the terrorist in an attempt to find out the disarm code. So far, he has refused to tell you anything but his name. The bomb is set to detonate in 2 hours.

What would you find acceptable as a means of getting the info out of him?

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.