Thought Experiment: The Ticking Bomb Scenario

I. Introduction

According to some scholars, moral standards are the sum of combined norms

and values. In other words, norms plus values equal moral standards. On the one hand,

norms are understood as general rules about our actions or behaviors. An ethical

dilemma or ethical paradox is a decision-making problem between two possible moral

imperatives, neither of which is unambiguously acceptable or preferable. In this study

we will know about “The Ticking Bomb Scenario”. This scenario gives us two difficult

options which will test us in handling a difficult problem which situations where persons,

are forced to decide choose between two or more conflicting options, neither of which

resolves the situation in a morally acceptable manner.

B. Theoretical Framework

Many countries have experienced an event which is stuck in the choice of two

situations. We do not know what will happen if we choose one to another. Whether it will

benefit the majority. By that situation, we need to know or understand the possible

consequences of a decision. Handling a dilemmas is not just like a choosing between

your favorite foods. This scenario is between life and death. The scenario can be better

understood through the arguments of those who respond to it. If there is a good

argument maybe it will not end in a bloody scene. The theoretical about this scenario is

why the suspect became a terrorist. Perhaps he once failed in life and lost hope or

maybe someone hurt him or was disappointed with the government's management.
C. Statement of the Problem

The main problem of this study is the terrorist who has set a hidden nuclear

device to explode in a highly populated urban area and the bomb will detonate within

the next six hours and the evacuation of entire city is impossible. The captured terrorist

is an extremist who is perfectly willing to die rather than collaborate in the thwarting of

his own scheme. Incidentally, the authorities have also captured his wife and children.

The only hope of preventing a nuclear tragedy is to torture the wife and children in front

of the terrorist to make him crack in time and reveal the location of the bomb. The

problem that even the most virtuous people face when thinking about torture is whether

there is ever a case when a good result produced by torture justifies the evil act of

torturing someone. Now, what should the authorities must do to prevent the bad

intention of the terrorist?

II. Presentation and critical analysis of data

A. Reality

As we can see in this study, we need to choose between this two dilemmas for

us to solve the entire problem. In the current “war of terror”, I think the government

should allowed the interrogation methods against terrorist for them to know exactly

the solution of the problem. But in this scenario, we need to choose between the

human rights and the safety of many. It is also unethical to let your moral principles

condemn thousands of others to an avoidable death. The law said, torture is

forbidden, but in this scenario this is the only way for the authorities to prevent a

nuclear tragedy. But in this case, there is no ethically acceptable course of action
 whatever the decision is morally wrong. I know it is understandable but sometimes an

ethically wrong act can be forgiven but in this case because it is a perfectly intelligible

human choice to make.

B. Reflection

Every government would have not just the right, but the duty. They should torture

the relatives of suspects if they believed that doing so would yield information that would

avert a terrorist attack. It came in the form of a devilish intellectual challenge. 'Let's take

your hypothesis a bit further. We have captured a terrorist, but he is a hardened

character. We cannot be certain that he will crack in time. It is difficult to decide but I

would rather torture the wife and children of the terrorist if that’s the only way for him

to tell where the bomb is, than many people will be affected by the explosion. It may

sound ruthless, but for me I will not endanger the lives of many to a person who does

not follow the law of society. It's important to understand that this answer does not

justify the decision to torture, nor does it argue that we are justified in choosing the least

bad option. Instead it should be interpreted rather differently. But I still believe that blood

is thicker than water. Every person has a good heart to listen to other people. If the

authorities will talk properly to the terrorist, the bloody explosion will not occur. He will

not let her wife and children be in danger.

C. Response

In laying out alternative solutions, it is important to consider the safety of the

majority. It is very important to be careful in every detail of the situation in. If we have

little or no experience of anything similar, our response to the imaginary case, what we
judge, believe, think or feel we would do, is unlikely to be a reliable guide to what we

actually would do. The less familiar the imaginary case, the less reliable our response.

Furthermore, even if we grant assumptions, that the use of torture is the only way to

obtain the information in the time available, are highly questionable. The reason is this

The Ticking Bomb Scenario stipulates that there is enough time to torture the

information out of the captive and simultaneously that there is not enough time for any

alternative method of acquiring the information.

III. Summary, Conclusions and Recommendation

The Ticking Bomb Scenario is a thought experiment that has been used in the

ethics debate over whether torture can ever be justified . It is between choosing and

making decisions in a very difficult situation. When taking an action, make sure you

can stand it, because when you are in a situation you can no longer back down. You

are responsible for every decision you make in life. Maybe this incident is just a fiction

in the study of ethics, but it has a big impact on us because you think if you are in that

situation, we will also do what is best for everyone. Terrorists are people who oppose

the government so this scenario is not far off. But this study reminds me that in every

difficult scenario, always put the welfare of others first. And I do believe that evil will

not prevail against kindness. So smooth actions is highly recommended in this kind of

situation for sure no one will be hurt. Sometimes we can't make decisions based on

fear and the possibility of what might happen. Truly successful decision making relies

on a balance between deliberate and instinctive thinking. Accountability is not

consequences, but ownership. It is a character trait, a life stance, a willingness to

own your actions and results regardless of the circumstances.

Reference

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario#Views_in_favor_of_

accepting_torture_in_emergencies

https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/06/10/moral-dilemmas/