The facts of the case are as follows:

• A madman has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas.
• The bombs are scheduled to go off in a short time.
• It is possible that hundreds of people may die.
• The authorities cannot make the bomber divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods.
• The bomber refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination.
• A high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, but the official is sure that it will make the bomber tell the truth in time for you to find and defuse the bombs.
• You know that the bomber can withstand torture himself, but would talk if you were to torture his innocent wife instead.

The rights and responsibilities of the parties involved are as follows:

• The bomber has the right to not be tortured. He also has the right to a lawyer and the right against self-incrimination.
• The authorities have the responsibility to protect the public. They also have the responsibility to uphold the law.
• You have the responsibility to follow the law and to protect the public.

The relevant values, concepts, social constraints, and any additional information necessary for an accurate understanding of the case are as follows:

• The value of human life is paramount.
• The law is important, but it is not always perfect.
• Sometimes it is necessary to break the law in order to uphold a higher moral principle.
• Torture is illegal and morally wrong.
• It is never right to torture an innocent person.
• The ends do not justify the means.

The possible ethical dilemmas for each party involved are as follows:

• The bomber has a dilemma. He can either refuse to talk and risk the lives of hundreds of people, or he can talk and violate his fifth amendment rights.
• The authorities have a dilemma. They can either follow the law and not torture the bomber, or they can break the law in order to save lives.
• You have a dilemma. You can either follow the law and not torture the bomber, or you can break the law in order to save lives.

The most immediate ethical issue facing the decision-making individual is whether or not to torture the bomber.

One ethical system that can be applied to this case is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical system that judges the morality of an action based on its consequences. In other words, an action is considered moral if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

According to utilitarianism, the authorities would be justified in torturing the bomber if it would save the lives of hundreds of people. The suffering of the bomber and his wife would be outweighed by the good of saving hundreds of lives.

Another ethical system that can be applied to this case is deontology. Deontology is a non-consequentialist ethical system that judges the morality of an action based on its duty or obligation. In other words, an action is considered moral if it is done out of a sense of duty, regardless of the consequences.

According to deontology, the authorities would not be justified in torturing the bomber, even if it would save the lives of hundreds of people. Torture is always wrong, regardless of the consequences.

A concept of justice that can be applied to this case is retributive justice. Retributive justice is based on the idea that criminals should be punished for their crimes. The punishment should be proportional to the crime.

According to retributive justice, the bomber should be punished for his crimes. However, the punishment should not be torture. Torture is a cruel and unusual punishment that is not proportional to the crime of planting bombs.

In conclusion, the ethical dilemma in this case is a difficult one. There are no easy answers. However, I believe that the authorities would not be justified in torturing the bomber, even if it would save the lives of hundreds of people. Torture is always wrong, regardless of the consequences.