"I think some positions of social responsibility morally

require a shift in deliberative criteria. The interrogator

in charge of a “ticking bomb” scenario would fail his

fellow citizens if he were to forgo otherwise blameworthy

means of extracting information about defusing it from the

terrorist in his custody. This is an instance of the common

law doctrine of necessity that depending on circumstances

can excuse acts both unlawful and immoral under normal

conditions."

I agree. But what should be the consequence for the

interrogator and/or person(s) responsible for the ordering

the arrest and detention of the 'terrorist' if the

'terrorist' were an innocent person framed and/or mistaken

as terrorist?



"The notion that “strictly parochial values” are

incompatible with the universalist aspirations of ethics

highlights the necessity of Kantian casuistry. Thus:

“Vedete come muore un italiano!” Generally speaking, a

broad range of preferential treatments for members of one’s

tribe, family, nation, or confession can readily pass the

law of nature criterion."


So does this mean you believe that gentiles don't have to help the Jews if

the Jews were unjustly persecuted by anti-semites if the anti-semites happend to be of one's own tribe, family, nation, or confession?