Torture

1.Torture is the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless, other person for the purpose of breaking their will. 2. Morality is principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. 3.Torture and interrogation coercion are never morally permissible. 4.The comparison of defense and interrogation is superficial. 5.Questioning is not a case of aggression, unlike defense. 6.The difference between our duties to perform certain acts of causation and our duties not to perform certain different acts of causation on the other had. 7.The bare illegality of their act of torture does not render it morally impermissible given it was otherwise morally permissible is irrelevant. 8.The premise that says torture might be the best possible action in some emergency situation needs more specification because your conclusion only says some instances. 9.In Conclusion, there are not any instances of minimally morally justifiable torture.. The premises that are not controversial are torture is the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless, other person for the purpose of breaking their will, and Morality is principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior, the comparison of defense and interrogation is superficial. Premises that are controversial are torture and interrogation coercion is never morally permissible; questioning is not a case of aggression, unlike defense; the difference between our duties to perform certain acts of causation and our duties not to perform certain different acts of causation on the other had. The premise torture and interrogation coercion is never morally permissible I believe is not controversial because if you torture them to the point of death you can never be sure if the information they are giving are true. You can also never be sure if the person has information or not. The premise questioning is not a case of aggression, unlike defense I believe is not controversial because questioning can be a case of aggression but not always is defense a case of aggression because it could be a natural reaction in some cases can be but not all the time. If torture seems to be the best case scenario and you don"t have the time to interrogate someone you have much less time to torture him not knowing whether he will comply to give information or just take the torture until he dies. Therefore if it is the best case scenario that could also mean that murder will also be minimally morally justifiable. If by your premise that there should be requirements before resorting to torture. Your other premise when it is the best case scenario but you do not have time to interrogate them contradicts each other. Yes if lives of many are at stake that should be the only requirement to use torture because no one should die because of something you didn't do. If you are stating that it should be a last resort what if you have no time then torture still shouldn't be the first resort. What if the information that he has is crucial for that one day because the thing that is going to happen is going to is going to happen the very next day. How are ways we know that the safety of those lives are unable to be avoidable we don"t know if the operation with the information is going to be able to succeed or fail. If minimalist torture and minimalist torture are different and minimalist never take it too far. What exactly is not too far? If there is no specification on what is too far how do we know if we are about to kill them. The argument that you say is used against the pro side that is torture is illegal is irrelevant and doesn't support the argument because your conclusion does not state anything about the legality of torture it is saying that some are minimally morally justifiable. There are no instances of torture that are minimally, morally justifiable.