Many moral and ethical decisions are dilemmas because of a certain kind of conflict between the rightness and wrongness of the actions and the goodness or badness of the consequences of the actions. Such ethical dilemmas cannot simply be "solved." Ethical theories that seem to provide clear-cut solutions leave out the moral judgement of actions and may deny that consequences are of any concern. Human action, in general, does go for the best consequences; there also come times when bad consequences must be accepted because we must do the right thing. And sometimes the right thing actually produces the best consequences. In preparation for this report I sent a survey, "The Mad Bomber" to men and women who are ranging in age from twelve to eighty-one. I distributed approximately fifteen surveys and received ten responses.
             Hence the dilemma: A madman has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs, and they are scheduled to go off in crowded areas within two hours. The authorities have tried through all conventional methods to make the bomber divulge the location of the bombs, but he refuses to say anything and has requested a lawyer to protect his legal rights. In exasperation, some high-ranking officials suggest torture. This would be illegal, of course, but officials are desperate. Is this the right thing to do? If so, would it be morally justifiable to torture the bomber's innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Explain.
             A summary of the responses shows there were two men and three women who agreed to torture the bomber, one of these men agreeing to torture the wife without any hesitation. While one woman wanted to change the scenario to try drugs on the bomber first, then some kind of desperate measures. Four women essentially indicated no to both of the questions. In the direction of men vs
             ...