Torture is sometimes morally permissible.

It doesn't bother me that much that my opponents in these debates always seek to weasel their way out of my hypothetical situations but I do want the readers to take notice of this. The point of my hypothetical situations was not to create highly plausible scenarios that often occur on a daily basis. The point was to demonstrate the absurdity of being categorically opposed to torture. ====== Case Con ====== Contention 1: Cooperation can be used more effectively than torture. This is completely irrelevant to the debate. The ticking time bomb scenario I outlined does not provide sufficient time for us to build a rapport with terrorists or to convince them of their own folly. Obviously if there is no imminent danger we should try to build trust with terrorists in our custody that may have useful information. You're pushing on an open door with that assertion. Contention 2: Information obtained through torture is unreliable I've already addressed this. So, if anyone wants to know my position they can reread my seventh paragraph of my first round. However there is something I would like to add. Even if torture were only 5% reliable, as some would claim, this is more than a sufficient basis to justify its use in extreme situations. If there were even a 5% or 1 in 20 chance that we could stop a nuclear bomb by our use of torture to extract information then we should not waver in our resolve to employ it. ====== Case Pro ====== If torture were always wrong, as you claim, then a few things would logically follow. Torture, under this view, would still be wrong even if we knew that by not using it tens of millions of people would die. So, here is my challenge to you. I would wish that you create a short paragraph expanding upon your position. It should be along the lines of "Millions of people should be allowed to die in a nuclear explosion even if torture was the only feasible means to save them because…" It shouldn't be so hard to construct such a paragraph if torture is always wrong, as you would have me believe. If you choose to not respond I will automatically assume that you don't have a coherent position. And now without further delay here is my trump card. Premise#1 It is morally acceptable to knowingly incur collateral damage to prevent 1 million people from dying in the context of a defensive war. Premise #2 Taking a course of action that will knowingly incur collateral damage is far worse than torturing a convicted terrorist for information if the ends to these scenarios are both the same. Premise # 3 By analogy torturing a convicted terrorist to prevent 1 million people from dying is the more ethical choice than taking a course of action that will knowingly incur collateral damage if the goal is also to save 1 million people. Conclusion If Premise number 1 and 2 are true then torture can be morally justified as a defensive action to prevent 1 million people from dying. I would venture a guess that premise number 1 is uncontroversial, at least to reasonable people. The rest of the argument hinges upon premise #2 being correct. If premise #2 were correct then the conclusion would logically follow. If you think the argument is flawed then you will have to logically demonstrate why acting in a way that guarantees the deaths of innocent civilians is less wrong than torturing a convicted terrorist if the ends are both the same. Honestly I would be dumbstruck if someone could successfully argue this but I'm more than willing to accept the fact that I may be wrong. Frankly I think this argument is so forceful that it is almost rhetorical but I am more than eager to have you point out any flaws in it. All the best, Freeman Sources . http://www.ethicapublishing.com...