Ethics

I don’t know anything about the study of Ethics, so forgive me if this has been addressed ad nauseam. And a quick search and personal experience has educated me to the notion that we claim torture is never acceptable, as it is inhumane. But entertain the following:

A subject has alerted authorities of a vast number of times explosives in random high traffic hubs amongst the populace. The subject has demonstrated the validity of their claims by voluntarily offering the locations of a large amount of bombs, which are discovered, and found to be live and time sensitive, as well as very high yield (whether disarm-able or not).

The subject is extremely intelligent and well schooled/educated. Declares hundreds of thousands of lives are to be taken by said devices. And upon request for their demands, reveals that none such demands exist. They wish only to watch the world burn, or even bask in the reality that it will be occurring on their behalf. They don’t care about imprisonment, or whatever felt lies ahead of them. Though it is unclear why they specifically wanted to be captured in order to pass along the knowledge of this looming event.

Perhaps officials weigh options, psycho analyze until their blue in the face, and are sort of at a stand still. Maybe they doubt the sheer amount of devices the subject has claimed. And in accordance with specific times they have given for particular detonations, indeed mass casualty events ensue. Terror strikes the community, and leaks of the ongoing situation internally spread like wildfire amongst the public.

Something in the back of officials minds quickly trends on Twitter and other last forms, even sparking mass protests IN FAVOR of…. - If we are unable to detect these devices or predict their locations/timelines, do we use “enhanced interrogation methods” to try and extract such information from the subject.

We have every reason in the world to assume that hundreds of thousands of lives are indeed to be taken in the fact of inaction, or possibly any kind of action. No other option remains. Many suggested a stay at home order to wait out the risk, but the subject anticipated this and has alleged vast periods of time are covered by the explosives, and such retreats of the public are simply not viable/tenable, as it would require years of abandonment of commercial and public spaces coast to coast.

In this event, is Torture as a last ditch effort acceptable?

I’m assuming that those in charge would be resorting to it much sooner that later out here, once the risk was verified, and options expended. Maybe whether successful or not, the subject would be “suicided”, or something along those lines.

But from an ethic and moral viewpoint, is this action ever justified in the scenario outlined above?