1. You are the Head of the FBI Anti-terrorism division in Los Angeles. You have apprehended a suspect you have reason to believe is the member of a major terrorist organization.You have obtained additional information from an independent source that a nuclear bomb will be exploded within the next 24 hours somewhere in the city by the very same terrorist organization that this suspect is a member of. Your top police interrogators have tried questioning the suspect for the past several hours, but he either refuses to say anything or just laughs in their faces, and with a wild, crazed look in his eyes, makes gestures and sounds of a loud explosion. Based on your many years of law enforcement experience, you do not believe you will get any more information from the suspect via traditional questioning and that the only way to get information is through “less traditional means”. You face a real ethical dilemma.
Do you torture the suspect in the hope that maybe he can provide information on the possible attack, perhaps saving millions of lives? Or, is it the case that the torture will not yield any type of meaningful response?
What about the rights of the suspect? Using both Kantian and Utilitarian theories/models, argue both sides for and against using the torture techniques. Use examples from what was covered in class and from the readings. Be specific. You need not have any knowledge about anti-torture or Homeland Security-related laws in the United States, but you should assume that all forms of torture would be considered illegal in the situation described here.
2. Is there a place or need for ethics in business?
3. Using ethical theories and rationalizations discussed in class, compare and contrast the ethical lapses of Bernie Madoff, Elizabeth Holmes and Harvey Weinstein. Use examples. Be specific.