Assignment task:
"One of the most used thought experiments in the torture debate is the 'ticking time bomb' scenario. This experiment asks us to put ourselves in the position of an experienced law officer facing a situation in which a terrorist group states that it has hidden a nuclear bomb in the city center of New York. The authorities have arrested the leader of the group who says that he knows where the bomb is located. The terrorist however refuses to reveal the bomb's location. As he is detained in the interrogation room, the clock is ticking. The question that this thought experiment addresses is whether we should use torture to obtain the information from the terrorist that can prevent the catastrophe."
Now consider the question from a Kantian perspective. The second formulation of the categorical imperative says that we can never use another as a mere means to an end. Is it morally permissible, from a Kantian perspective, to torture the terrorist in the scenario? Compare your answer with the one you arrived at last week. Do the Kantian and utilitarian answers to this question differ? How do the ethical principles behind these two theories guide decision-making in this scenario? If the answers differ, which one do you think is correct, and why?