——- so you saw that trigger warning right?? Well in case you missed it here is another one. The following paragraphs talk about children, nuclear bombs and torture. Please don’t read if you’re going to be upset ——-

The hypothetical situation:

You’re an FBI agent when you get a call that a suspected terrorist named Younger has sent video evidence to his local police department of three nuclear bombs. He’s made the bombs himself but from the video sent they appear to be fully operational. To make things worse he’s planted all three bombs in three of the most populated cities in the country & they’re set to simultaneously go off in only a matter of days.

Luckily, the FBI are able to locate him and bring him in for questioning. It is later revealed that he has mentally prepared for what was to come so the intensive questioning & fear mongering does not work as it does with most people.

Realizing that they won’t be able to make him crack, some of your coworkers bring in a special operative named Harold, he’s the FBI’s “secret weapon” and he specializes in torture techniques to extract information.

——- in case your were stubborn and have read thus far, 🚫 TRIGGER WANRING 🚫———-

Over a period of days Harold subjects Younger to mutilation, waterboarding, electrocution, and many other torture techniques that are illegal. The whole time Harold is doing this you feel immensely uncomfortable & speak out against it but your coworkers try to silence you by reminding you that millions of Americans lives are at stake. Children, parents, the disabled, the young, and the sick will all die alike if those bombs go off. Feeling guilty but more or less helpless, you do nothing.

After days of being tortured, Younger STILL has not cracked. The stakes are getting higher because as of now you have less than a day before those bombs detonate. Using his last and final attempt to extract information from Younger, Harold decides to bring in Younger’s two kids and his wife.

Upon seeing his family, Younger begins to panic & he gives up the location of one of the bombs. However, there’s still two more bombs you need the location of and after showing that he’s unwilling to speak more, Harold decides to convince him. To your shock, Harold murders Younger’s wife in front of him and then calls for his kids to be brought into the torture chamber.

————

At this point, you’re outraged but you’re also facing the biggest moral dilemma of your life. You have three options:

(a) Say nothing. Let Harold do as he sees fit with the children, after all you’re not the one in that torture chamber actually doing the acts. You can’t be responsible for the actions of an adult that is being cosigned by authority figures. Your hands are clean right?

(b) Encourage Harold. Yes we can all agree that torture is wrong but what is the life of two compared to the life of millions? You owe it to your family and your country to get this information by any means necessary.

(c) Stop Harold. You’ll find another way to locate the bombs hopefully, there’s always got to be a better option. Besides, even if Harold does torture the kids, what good will it do if Younger STILL does not crack? All of that and two innocent lives would have been lost for nothing.

————-

Please keep in mind that this is a HYPOTHETICAL situation. This whole post is based off of a movie called Unforgettable (sorry for the spoilers if you haven’t seen it). If you’ve seen this movie then please disregard how the movie ended and vote based only on the question.

————

NOTE

Please do not turn this into a hate post and start blindly screaming into the abyss of the Internet about how anyone that could vote for and or argue _____ is “morally inferior,” “going to hell,” or any other noncreative insult you can think of. This is a HYPOTHETICAL situation, relax.

————-

Further questions:

1. Can the value of life be quantified? Are certain lives worth more than others? Is a certain number of lives worth more than one individual life?

2. Rather you think torture is right or wrong, do you feel that it is or can be necessary in high stake situations (such as the one described).

3. If you see an act being committed that is legally and for most people morally wrong, can you still be held morally responsible for choosing not to interfere? Does being a moral person mean enforcing your morals even in situations that don’t involve you personally?

4. Are any of your morals universal (applying in any and every situation no matter the circumstances) or are they all situational (able to be changed, swayed or overridden depending on the circumstances)?