After examining all the theories above, I have come to a conclusion that I do not agree with any of them. The utilitarian thinking is logical but it's immoral and unethical and therefore should be rejected. The Kantian theory is only regarding what's morally correct and does not consider the extent of the action. I believe mostly with situation ethics as it is the most reasonable, since it considers the effect of the action and whether it is overall good to most of the people involved. Personally, I would torture the man to save the tens of millions of lives. That one terrorist is guilty of many crimes and if he was in another country, he may have been sentenced to the death penalty. Also, the terrorist may also die in the process of the bombings, if the prison was located in the city. Even though some people say that death is a better escape than torture, the authorities are more concerned with the safety of the city than the wellbeing of the criminal who caused the dangerous situation in the first place. sacrificing the people would be a great mistake as there was a way to halt the attack, even if it was at a price. Torture may be unethical but it can be justified and forgiven in some extreme situations. In the scenario of the ticking bomb problem, torturing the terrorist is the right thing to do even though there is no ethical theory to argue for it.