Feedback wanted: Some questions on Ending (spoilerish)

[masochism]

Ah, the child. Try to put it in perspective.

1. 18th century rural Prussia isn't a very nice place for a child without any of its family. He will be releasing the child into an environment which could likely get them killed, possibly in a rather gruesome way.
So its not a matter of:
-kill child vs let child live happily ever after
but instead it is a matter of:
-kill child vs put the child into a hostile environment without any surviving immediate family

2. If he lets the child go, then if the child doesn't meet an untimely (yet natural) end, then they will likely alert the villagers to the goings on in the castle. This would most likely undermine the efforts of Daniel and Alexander, and could lead to even more bloodshed in the long run (on top of making all the previous tortures be for absolutely nothing).

3. The world would probably benefit less from a farmchild than from a member of the academic world with Daniel's unique experiences and knowledge. Thus Daniel's life is more important to the world than that of the child.
____
Daniel had no way of stopping the torturing of the people once he knew that it was going on. If you think otherwise, I'd like to know why. As for suppressing his own doubt about the identities of the tortured, this has absolutely no relevance to whether he is a good person. Torture is torture whether you are doing it to a murderer or a saint. Both feel the same pain.
____
Regarding Alexander's scorn of Daniel's actions, this seems quite consistent with a good old Hannibal Lecture (not Lecter). Google it if the term is unknown to you.
____
To me, this paints a very simple picture of Daniel; he generally makes decent choices, considering the range of choices available to him and the long and short term consequences of each possible choice.