A man who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off TODAY. If this occurs, dozens of people will die. You have no other way of finding out this information quickly enough, but the authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture - with no limit other than the person will not be killed, permanently disfigured or disabled.
This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. With the presumption (for the purpose of the hypothesis) that the torture will give you a 50% chance of saving the people, do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the bomber's innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why? (or why not?)