Ethical Questions

• Shizuo wrote on 2011-12-09 01:59
  Okay, so I have a sheet from class in front of me with some ethical questions on it. I already filled it out with my answers, but I'm interested to see how you guys would answer these. I want you to give your answers and reasoning. Please keep in mind that not all the questions are really....realistic, so I don't need anyone to point that out (however, a couple of them are based on real events or stories). I also understand that some of the questions are pretty hard, so you don't need to answer all of them. As always, there's no right or wrong answers.
  
  Question 1
  [SPOILER="Spoiler"]Frank Black is a railroad worker who helps make sure that trains do not collide with one another on the tracks inside a switch yard. One day, he sees a train traveling down a track where thirty children from the Cleveland School for the Deaf are visiting on a field trip. The children cannot hear the approaching train, and they are all standing with their backs to the oncoming train because they are looking at a map of the train yard. Frank is too far away to reach them in time to shove them off the track, and the train is too close to the children to be able to brake in time. No one else is nearby.
  
  As it happens, Frank is standing next to a lever that will let him switch the train onto a different track. Unfortunately, a railroad employee named Helen is working on the second track to fix one of the rails. As Helen can't afford a babysitter, she brought her toddler to work with her. To keep her toddler from wandering away while she worked, she buckled a harness around the baby and then tied one end of the buckle to the railroad track. It would take Helen at least two minutes to unbuckle the harness, and the train is only one minute away.
  
  If Frank does not pull the lever, the train will run over the thirty deaf schoolchildren. He can rescue the schoolchildren by pulling the lever and switching the train to the other track, but if he does so he will cause the train to crush Helen's baby before her mother's horrified eyes. Perhaps Helen will also be killed.
  
  Frank is not responsible for the train being there. It was supposed to be on the other side of the train yard, but the engineer was tired at the end of his shift and didn't pay attention to the track signals.
  What should Frank do? And why?[/SPOILER]
  
  Question 2
  [SPOILER="Spoiler"]You and nineteen other friends are exploring a cave on the coast of the Pacific Ocean when your friend Zed gets stuck in the cave's mouth. The tide is rising, and soon all of you will drown (except Zed, whose head is outside the cave). By sheer good luck and the devious mentality of the person writing this question, you happen to have a stick of dynamite with you. Your options are to blow Zed up and escape through the cave mouth, or to drown along with your eighteen other friends. As it happens, one of your eighteen friends is the daughter of the research scientist who seems to be about to discover a cure for cancer. If she dies, the research scientist will fall into a deep depression and not continue researching for a time.
  What should you do?[/SPOILER]
  For this one, you can't blow up a different part of the cave. You MUST choose between Zed or your other friends.
  
  Question 3
  [SPOILER="Spoiler"]In William Styron's novel Sophie's Choice, Sophie and her two children are taken to a Nazi concentration camp. A Nazi tells her to choose which of her two children will be killed. If she refuses to choose one, he will kill both. If she chooses one, the other will live.
  What should Sophie do?[/SPOILER]
  
  Question 4
  [SPOILER="Spoiler"]The town of Grantville is very small and only has one church. The leader of that church, Pastor Brown, is concerned about his congregation. Many of the citizens in Grantville have stopped coming to church and listening to his sermons. Several thefts have occurred in the community, and Pastor Brown hears rudeness and bad language all the time when he goes grocery shopping. Pastor Brown decides that he needs to do something to stop the tide of immorality.
  
  The next Sunday, Pastor Brown preaches a fiery sermon in which he warns his (small) congregation that they will be punished by God if they do evil deeds. He finished his sermon by telling everyone that there is a very simple way to know if they are evildoers or good people. He has a special drink called the "Moral Health Drink" that will make people's bodies reflect the state of their moral health. In other words, if evildoers take a drink, they will get sick. But if good people drink, they will become healthy, even if they were sick before.
  
  Everyone in the congregation lines up to take a drink from Pastor Brown's cooler. The next day, the news spread through Grantville that Pastor Brown has a miracle drink that will make (good) sick people well and (bad) healthy people sick. Everyone asks Pastor Brown for a drink, and he gives drinks to everyone.
  
  Far away in Washington, D.C., the Food and Drug Administration learns about this and becomes angry. They do not believe that Pastor Brown has a miracle drink. They come and raid his kitchen and take away his cooler. When they analyze the contents, they find that Pastor Brown's "Moral Health Drink" is actually cherry Kool-Aid.
  
  The FDA tells Pastor Brown it is going to fine him one million dollars for pretending that cherry Kool-Aid is actually a "Moral Health Drink." Pastor Brown protests. "I only did it for the good of the people of Grantville!" he insists. "Since I gave everyone a cup of my 'Moral Health Drink,' there has been no public drunkenness, no theft, no crime in the community at all! And you should also consider that I didn't force anyone to drink the 'Moral Health Drink'! Everyone who came here for a cup asked me for it, and I didn't charge them anything! If anything, the citizens of Grantville ought to pay me for stopping the crime wave!"
  
  Do you agree with Pastor Brown that he didn't do anything wrong?
  
  The FDA calls the Grantville newspaper and tells it about Pastor Brown's trick with the cherry Kool-Aid. When the prosecutor in Grantville learns about the cherry Kool-Aid, he files three murder charges against Pastor Brown.
  
  "Why are you charging me with murder?" Pastor Brown asks, bewildered. "I stopped the crime wave in Grantville. You should be thanking me for what I did."
  
  "I'm charging you with one count of murder because you caused the death of Jennifer Hildemeyer," the prosecutor says. "According to Jennifer's confession, she drank your 'Moral Health Drink' because she was afraid everyone would suspect her if she didn't. But she was so sure your 'Moral Health Drink' would prove to everyone that she was the thief that she actually did fall ill. When the ambulance was rushing her to the hospital last night, it collided with a truck in an intersection, and Jennifer was killed."
  
  "Well, Jennifer's death was the truck driver's fault, not mine!" Pastor Brown protests.
  
  "I'm also charging you with one count of murder because you caused the death of George Green," the prosecutor goes on. "Mr. Green was a diabetic. Do you know how much sugar was in that cherry Kool-Aid?"
  
  "Well, artificial sweeteners are bad for your health!" Pastor Brown says.
  
  "And the third count of murder is for the death of Jacob Cobb," the prosecutor goes on. "Jacob Cobb is the most moral man in town, but he also has high blood pressure. After he drank your Kool-Aid, he believed it would cure his high blood pressure, so he stopped taking his medication. Yesterday he died of a stroke."
  
  "I never told Jacob Cobb to stop taking his medication!" Pastor Brown exclaims.
  
  "We'll see what a jury thinks," the prosecutor replies.
  
  Is Pastor Brown morally responsible for the deaths of Jennifer, George, or Jacob?[/SPOILER]
  
  Question 5
  [SPOILER="Spoiler"]Miles is a police officer who has just captured Nick, a member of a fringe religious group that has planted a bomb in the Mall of America during the Christmas season. Unless defused, the bomb will explode and kill thousands of people. Nick knows where the bomb is located, but he is refusing to tell. It may (or may not) be possible to evacuate the mall before the bomb goes off--no one really knows except Nick, who isn't telling.
  
  Should Miles torture Nick to get him to reveal the bomb's location?
  
  While trying to decide what to do, Miles spots Nick's innocent two-year-old son outside in a stroller. Miles knows Nick loves his son and would do almost anything to keep him from getting hurt.
  
  Is it morally permissible for Miles to torture the baby to make Nick reveal the bomb's location?[/SPOILER]
  
  As always, don't be rude if you disagree with someone. Respect others' opinions. You can debate about it, but it stops being a debate when insults and personal attacks are thrown out, so please refrain from insulting others.
• Baronjr2 wrote on 2011-12-09 02:32
  What class requires you to take this o.O...
• Conor wrote on 2011-12-09 02:40
  Question 1:
  I would hope there would be some sort of aid for the hearing impaired visitors whether it be some sort of chaperone or even a dog (though I guess they're not seeing impaired, as blind people have guide dogs more often than those that are deaf l0l).
  Let the train go. Sorry.
  
  Question 2:
  Obv kill Zed.
  
  Question 3:
  Sacrifice herself. I'm not a mother, but if I were, I wouldn't be able to bare the thought of seeing either of my kids die.
  
  Question 4:
  He committed the initial fault of lying, but the others fell for it easily. Both sides are wrong, imo.
  
  Question 5:
  Unsure.
• Shizuo wrote on 2011-12-09 02:53

  Quote from Baronjr2;685721:

  What class requires you to take this o.O...

  
  
  Philosophy.
• Micho wrote on 2011-12-09 02:58
  Question 1:
  
  I can't really decide, their both horrifying choices. I don't want to kill thirty kids, and I certainly do not want to kill a baby while the mother is right there and she'll witness everything! If I really had to choose I would kill Helen's baby, sorry Helen. ;______;
  
  Question 2:
  
  Blow up Zed, for obvious reason. My life, and my eighteen other friends + one of them is the key to cure cancer and probably saving million of lives in the future > Zed.
  
  Question 3:
  
  Sophie should kick that Nazi's ass. But seriously, tough choice, I can't really decide. If I was Sophie I rather kill myself and let them both live.
  
  Question 4:
  
  He shouldn't have to pay a million dollars, all he was trying to do was help his town, he had good intentions. Now as for the three deaths, really how could he have known? If he knew surely would have stopped them from drinking it, but he didn't. Although he did lie about his miracle drink which is a sin itself so, kinda ironic.
  
  Question 5:
  
  Yes, if torturing Nick will get him to tell where the bomb is and be able to defuse it and save thousands of life, go ahead. Ugh, again with babies! If torturing Nick doesn't work. . . Last resort would to threaten Nick and tell him that if he doesn't say where the bomb is that he'll hurt the child, surely Nick will give up the location before you can actually hurt the baby. Just gotta fake it. But I wouldn't advise Miles to actually hurt the baby if that doesn't work, that's just plain cruel. . .
  
  So, these are pretty ****ed up. Not going to lie.
• TimeControllerGace wrote on 2011-12-09 03:34
  Question 1:
  Since the engineer was not being responsible, Frank should simply let the train go. Helen and her child will live, thus saving an employee of the railroad company she works with, and with the thirty deaf children dead, the engineer responsible with for train's course will be held responsible. If Frank were to switch the train's course, Helen would be killed, but Frank would have been held responsible, along with the engineer. It's a cruel fate, but letting the deaf children die results in less people being held responsible for poor choices and actions.
  
  Question 2:
  Easy One. Blow Zed up. Why let one person live and eighteen others die, when one person can "take the fall" and the rest can live, especially the daughter of the research scientist that's about to discover the cure to cancer.
  
  Question 3:
  If I understand the question correctly, the mom should choose the older to die. The younger one would have more time to recover from this whole incident, and possibly go on to prevent such a case from happening again.
  
  Question 4:
  I do not agree with Pastor Brown's reasoning because he basically lied about a drink have "powerful" effects that could cure good people and harm bad people. The people may have chosen to drink this miracle drink, but he was the one to "create" this drink. He is at fault.
  Pastor Brown is morally responsible for only George, not Jennifer or Jacob. George was the only one "truly" affected by the Miracle Drink Potion, due to it actually being cherry Kool-Aid. Jennifer died out of coincidence, and Jacob died at his own confusion for not taking his medication.
  
  Question 5:
  Miles should not torture Nick because this could possibly result in further noncooperation in revealing the location of the bomb and how to disarm it.
  In the sake of thousands of lives,.........yes it is, because by doing so, Miles can basically take control over Nick's reasoning to rebel against cooperating.
  
  
  Edit: Someone had a demented mindset for writing such questions, tbh.
• EndlessDreams wrote on 2011-12-09 03:41
  Question 1: Frank should pull the lever, and then pull out his swiss army knife to cut the harnass of the toddler all before the train hits. Either that, or just point to the train to those deaf children, and the children will just move out the way.
  
  Not sure why out of the 30 deaf children on a field trip, none of them felt the train coming. (Nor were there any adult guides with them) Wheres the teacher?
  
  Question 2: Too bad, Zed and all my friends are dead because I don't know how to activate the dynamite. Sucks to be traveling inside a cave with me.
  
  Question 3: Sophie and the two children should try to kill the Nazi guard because they are all going to be dead otherwise. Nazis planned to kill them all anyways.
  
  Question 4: Not sure why would the FDA would come to this scenario...
  The truck driver that killed Jennifer in the ambulance failed to yield to an ambulance, so the truck driver is at fault here. Green/Jacobs are just idiots for believing in the pastor. A diabetic and/or high blood pressure person don't just die in the same day the Kool-Aid is given. Their responsibility for their health when they notice something is wrong.
  
  Question 5: If Miles wants to sit in jail next to Nick, sure by all means go ahead, torture Nick for information. Nick may even just give wrong information just to stop the torture. They probably should just evacuate the mall first, and then have professionals handle the situation.
• Strawberry wrote on 2011-12-09 04:10
  Question 1: It said it would take Helen at least two minutes, but what if Helen was the one who instead pulled the lever as she is not deaf...Frank would be the one that unbuckles the baby's harness, because it never indicated how long it took for someone else to unbuckle the harness, it only mentioned Helen.
  
  All of the lives would the be saved, and no one but the engineer would have to be responsible of having nearly killed tons of people.
  
  Question 2: Blow Zed up, because more people can be saved, rather than one person. Your friends are valuable things, but saving more than a million lives is probably better than saving one, even if it's pretty cruel to do that to a friend.
  
  Question 3: Sophie would sacrifice herself for them, and then the person she was with in the novel would keep taking care of them. As a mother, she'd never want to see her children killed in front of her very own eyes, as it would leave her deeply depressed, and applying if you knew the novel, she dies at the end anyways. So it would not matter if she died earlier.
  
  Question 4: I think he still is responsible, because he has lied to them. He didn't not have intentions that were all good. Apparently the bad people would be to get sick, and that is a bad intention on his part. But, he was aiming for particularly good intentions, as it's not like the drinks were poisoned or anything. He did nothing wrong except for his little lie.
  
  He was not responsible. Even the closest one George to being close to having have been killed by Pastor. He did say that he never did force anyone to drink it.
  Certainly, the lie was what pressured people to drink it, but George could've easily not drank it at all, and no one would find out about it. So for the most part, no.
  
  Question 5: If he tortures Nick, then it may not want him to reveal the location of the bomb even more. Nick seems content with not telling, so beating him doesn't seem like it will actually help get answers out of him at all.
  
  Even if it's cruel, then he should torture the baby. It doesn't say how he would torture the baby, and an harmless threat could even do the trick without anybody being harmed a bit.
• Shizuo wrote on 2011-12-09 05:41

  Quote from Strawberry;685832:

  
  Question 5: If he tortures Nick, then it may not want him to reveal the location of the bomb even more. Nick seems content with not telling, so beating him doesn't seem like it will actually help get answers out of him at all.
  
  Even if it's cruel, then he should torture the baby. It doesn't say how he would torture the baby, and an harmless threat could even do the trick without anybody being harmed a bit.

  
  
  Someone in my class said something similar. They also pointed out that Nick probably hates the human race and, because of it, is okay with blowing up tons of people (of course, that could also be a result of the religious group he's in). They mentioned that torturing him would only make him believe this even more, and only make him want to give a wrong answer so that they all die.
  
  Also, guys, I did point out that these scenarios aren't realistic xD;; And they are supposed to be a bit twisted (makes them a bit harder to answer, imo).
• Sinned wrote on 2011-12-09 05:55
  I know some people will see me as a monster, troll, or whatever but I'm completely serious in these answers.
  
  1. Frank should let the train go, he won't be responsible for it and the deaf children at this point are making no contributions to society whereas a current worker is. Although it is possible that all 30 of them will discover the cure of all human sicknesses, it is also possible that all 30 would become street bums. Gambling on the possibilities of 30 children out of many versus one person who is currently working, I'd let the children die.
  
  2. Blow Zed up, 1 death vs. 18 death, especially one that is going to be useful.
  
  3. Kill both children. With these two possible choices, it's going to be impossible for a good solution for one single child to be alive aside from possibly being able to tell his tales if he somehow miraculously survives. Either child would most likely die anyway from the extensive labor and minimal nutritional diets needed in their young lives. It would be best to end their pain early.
  
  4. Pastor Brown did not do anything wrong, he acted with a placebo effect because he would be unable to change anything otherwise.
  He is not morally responsible, although legally responsible because he had good intents.
  
  5. Anything that would get the bomb's location would be the best. Damage to many as well as large damage to infrastructure should not be held for the sake of two individuals' health and safety.
• Zid wrote on 2011-12-09 17:12

  Quote from Shizuo;685694:

  Question 1
  What should Frank do? And why?

  
  
  How long is the buckle line? How wide is the train?
  
  If both are appropriate lengths, Frank should shout to Helen to hold the baby away safely from the train while it passes through. Can the buckle be adjusted to be longer? I'm sure railroad workers have switch knives and that the buckle is not metal (Who puts a metal buckle on a toddler?). If not, Frank should be close enough to a shed with a hammer and railroad nails to quickly snap the buckle.
  
  If not, I'd have to choose the deaf children's lives over Helen's toddler. The fact that these children are in school means they're receiving education that could benefit society. Helen, not being able to afford the babysitter, is most likely poor, and the toddler is a hard financial burden on her. It looks like she very much loves her child and that the child's death will be very tramautizing, but at least her financial situation will take a relief (after the off days she'll have to take to deal with the whole accident).
  
  

  Quote from Shizuo;685694:

  Question 2
  What should you do?

  
  
  Set the dynamite just enough away from Zed for the explosion to blow him out of the opening but not killing him (hopefully from the fall). We all swim out of the cave opening.
  
  If that is not a viable answer, then I explain to Zed and we blow him up.
  
  

  Quote from Shizuo;685694:

  Question 3
  What should Sophie do?

  
  
  Sophie should appease the Nazi for some extra time "to think about it, since I don't want to make the wrong choice". At night, she'd give her two children (and told them to lie to survive) to somebody else to take care of, since the Nazis haven't begun labeling their prisoners yet.
  
  The next day, if the Nazis threaten to kill every child for her choice, she can argue that there would be no extra labor for the camp and that the parents are more likely to revolt, which she can reason is more likely to happen since they'll die anyway. If the Nazis punish her with execution, she can only try to escape or die, either way.
  
  The effects of her decisions might have psychological effects on Allied rescuers and the survivors of the camp. The kind of effects that result in perhaps foolishness or heroism.
  
  Now if she does escape (somehow), she can look for help from the Allies (if she's near their territory) and could potentially not only save her children, but everybody else in the camp.
  
  

  Quote from Shizuo;685694:

  Question 4
  Do you agree with Pastor Brown that he didn't do anything wrong?

  
  
  The good people would stay healthy, so it encouraged them to stay good.
  
  The bad people would go sick, so it encouraged them to be good.
  
  That level of good intentions and results is worth that one lie. After all, the whole town found out about the lie, so there's no debating that "Truth is best or not" when the lie is already uncovered.
  
  He did something wrong, but it led to more good. And that wrong was at least found out.
  
  

  Quote from Shizuo;685694:

  Question 4
  Is Pastor Brown morally responsible for the deaths of Jennifer, George, or Jacob?

  
  
  Jennifer, no. I could say I'm a doctor and I prescribed medicine for a patient. If that patient believed the medicines aren't working and wants to go to the hospital again to be sure, but died to a random accident, I am in no way to blame for that. That's the drivers' responsibilities. I didn't cause that accident; they did.
  
  George, yes. Today, we have food and drink venders tell us what's in the content of what they serve. One could say you don't eat or drink what you don't trust, but the pastor swayed George with religion. The paster said he didn't force George, but persuaded him instead to make that choice of drinking the Kool-Aid.
  
  It's similar to if one swayed one of their friends to choose to commit a crime of murder.
  
  Jacob, no. The paster didn't tell Jacob to stop taking his medication. In fact, Jacob should have continued taking his medication, but check up with the doctor more often to see if his condition was improving before getting off the medication.
  
  

  Quote from Shizuo;685694:

  Question 5
  Should Miles torture Nick to get him to reveal the bomb's location?

  
  
  Torture has little effect on a religious person who is prepared to die for their beliefs.
  
  Like EndlessDreams said, torturing in today's American society has controversial effects, besides the possibility of landing in jail.
  
  

  Quote from Shizuo;685694:

  Is it morally permissible for Miles to torture the baby to make Nick reveal the bomb's location?

  
  
  I'd rather explain how horrible the child's life will be, growing up knowing his father committed thousands of murders. How people will threaten his son because of his father's actions. How his son will begin to hate his father for what he's done.
  
  In the end, I'd tell Nick that if he killed all the people, his son would be locked away and would learn to hate his father for all he's done. Either he tells Miles where the bomb is located, or he'll lose his son forever.
  
  It's easier to crack Nick like that than to torture his son, because not only would Miles fall into controversy about torturing a child, but Nick will turn his son's torture into a religious-influencing device to convince his son to follow his religion. That, in turn, would risk having his son grow up like Nick and do the same thing later on in the future.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  These are some pretty good questions. I had to think outside of the box for a bit for them.
• Kueh wrote on 2011-12-09 17:31
  Question 1: Being deaf doesn't mean being stupid. They should have known not to be on the train track. It's the same as if they just meandered onto a busy road and thought they shouldn't have to look both ways because they were deaf. Sorry kiddies, but with a crowd of 30, at least one of you should have the common sense to keep a look out for trains. You don't need 30 people to read a map, and if not a single one of you decided to be cautious in an obviously dangerous situation, then I can't really say that I have pity on you, deaf or not. I would let the train go.
  
  Question 2: Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead.
  
  Question 3: Sophie should choose one of the children. I read that novel, and she ends up committing suicide over her choice, but I think she was being unfair with herself. It's not like she could have done more.
  
  Question 4: The prosecutor's reasoning is just plain stupid. If you go about it in a cause-and-effect mentality, you can accuse plenty of people for plenty of crimes that they had nothing to do with.
  
  "You're under arrest for the murder of so and so, because you gave birth to the person who murdered him."
  
  "You're under arrest for the theft of your own property, because you're the one who allowed it to be stolen by obtaining it in the first place."
  
  "You're under arrest for the assassination of the president, because you purchased a dog from the petstore 17 years ago which caused a chain of events that ended in the president's assassination."
  
  I think the pastor was clever, and completely without guilt.
  
  Question 5: Why resort to physical torture? Just bring the son to the mall and tell Nick that his son will die if he doesn't help disarm the bomb.
• Northwind wrote on 2011-12-10 09:24

  Quote from Lyre;686154:

  
  Question 5: Why resort to physical torture? Just bring the son to the mall and tell Nick that his son will die if he doesn't help disarm the bomb.

  
  
  this
• Hazeri wrote on 2011-12-10 10:07
  1, I don't feel morally obligued to save neither. 30 less mouths to feed should ease the world's stress though.
  
  2, This one would be harder for moralists if the scientist's kid was the one you had to blow up, just saying. Anyways, killing Zed only, ONLY because my survival comes first. I don't really care if the other guys are saved, and If I could help it, I'd choose my bro over them.
  
  3, Kill the nazi, or kill the children. People say "if I were the woman I'd kill myself", I wouldn't. I value my life above everyone else's.
  
  4, Being strictly technical, the priest isn't at fault. But this is something that rustles my jimmies because this is what I think modern religion does to its people. They take advantage of people's faith and toy with them for their own benefit. Jail the priest, give him the chair.
  
  5, Torture the kid, I don't see any reasons not to. The guy is being a smartass and someone has to put him in his place. And if that gets the job done, so be it. Worse things have been done before.
  
  These questions are supposed to be hard for people with morals I guess. I do have morals, but I don't share the same views as others in touchy subjects like these, and in survival situations It's always me that comes first.
• Ithiliel wrote on 2011-12-11 03:27

  Quote from Zid;686138:

  How long is the buckle line? How wide is the train?
  
  If both are appropriate lengths, Frank should shout to Helen to hold the baby away safely from the train while it passes through. Can the buckle be adjusted to be longer? I'm sure railroad workers have switch knives and that the buckle is not metal (Who puts a metal buckle on a toddler?). If not, Frank should be close enough to a shed with a hammer and railroad nails to quickly snap the buckle.
  
  If not, I'd have to choose the deaf children's lives over Helen's toddler. The fact that these children are in school means they're receiving education that could benefit society. Helen, not being able to afford the babysitter, is most likely poor, and the toddler is a hard financial burden on her. It looks like she very much loves her child and that the child's death will be very tramautizing, but at least her financial situation will take a relief (after the off days she'll have to take to deal with the whole accident).
  
  
  
  Set the dynamite just enough away from Zed for the explosion to blow him out of the opening but not killing him (hopefully from the fall). We all swim out of the cave opening.
  
  If that is not a viable answer, then I explain to Zed and we blow him up.
  
  
  
  Sophie should appease the Nazi for some extra time "to think about it, since I don't want to make the wrong choice". At night, she'd give her two children (and told them to lie to survive) to somebody else to take care of, since the Nazis haven't begun labeling their prisoners yet.
  
  The next day, if the Nazis threaten to kill every child for her choice, she can argue that there would be no extra labor for the camp and that the parents are more likely to revolt, which she can reason is more likely to happen since they'll die anyway. If the Nazis punish her with execution, she can only try to escape or die, either way.
  
  The effects of her decisions might have psychological effects on Allied rescuers and the survivors of the camp. The kind of effects that result in perhaps foolishness or heroism.
  
  Now if she does escape (somehow), she can look for help from the Allies (if she's near their territory) and could potentially not only save her children, but everybody else in the camp.
  
  
  
  The good people would stay healthy, so it encouraged them to stay good.
  
  The bad people would go sick, so it encouraged them to be good.
  
  That level of good intentions and results is worth that one lie. After all, the whole town found out about the lie, so there's no debating that "Truth is best or not" when the lie is already uncovered.
  
  He did something wrong, but it led to more good. And that wrong was at least found out.
  
  
  
  Jennifer, no. I could say I'm a doctor and I prescribed medicine for a patient. If that patient believed the medicines aren't working and wants to go to the hospital again to be sure, but died to a random accident, I am in no way to blame for that. That's the drivers' responsibilities. I didn't cause that accident; they did.
  
  George, yes. Today, we have food and drink venders tell us what's in the content of what they serve. One could say you don't eat or drink what you don't trust, but the pastor swayed George with religion. The paster said he didn't force George, but persuaded him instead to make that choice of drinking the Kool-Aid.
  
  It's similar to if one swayed one of their friends to choose to commit a crime of murder.
  
  Jacob, no. The paster didn't tell Jacob to stop taking his medication. In fact, Jacob should have continued taking his medication, but check up with the doctor more often to see if his condition was improving before getting off the medication.
  
  
  
  Torture has little effect on a religious person who is prepared to die for their beliefs.
  
  Like EndlessDreams said, torturing in today's American society has controversial effects, besides the possibility of landing in jail.
  
  
  
  I'd rather explain how horrible the child's life will be, growing up knowing his father committed thousands of murders. How people will threaten his son because of his father's actions. How his son will begin to hate his father for what he's done.
  
  In the end, I'd tell Nick that if he killed all the people, his son would be locked away and would learn to hate his father for all he's done. Either he tells Miles where the bomb is located, or he'll lose his son forever.
  
  It's easier to crack Nick like that than to torture his son, because not only would Miles fall into controversy about torturing a child, but Nick will turn his son's torture into a religious-influencing device to convince his son to follow his religion. That, in turn, would risk having his son grow up like Nick and do the same thing later on in the future.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  These are some pretty good questions. I had to think outside of the box for a bit for them.

  
  
  This is going to seem like a cop out, but I have to say that I fully agree with everything Zid has said. It's exactly as I would have answered.
  
  Though...I already knew the answer to Sophie's Choice because I own the book.