Torture is sometimes morally permissible.

Allow me to begin by thanking my opponent for his time and willingness to engage on this issue. My opponent has more than demonstrated his ability to reason and write concisely. With this in mind there is little doubt a robust intellectual exchange will be taking place. ============ Case pro- rebuttals ============ Contention 1: Hypothetical situations My opponent rightfully asserts that the ticking time bomb situation I outlined is improbable. However, this does nothing to change what the moral imperative would be if such a scenario did arise. And insofar as the situation I outlined is physically possible and logically conceivable then it still counts as an argument for the use of torture. If you want to argue that this example shouldn't count in my favor then you will have to demonstrate why it's either physically impossible or logically inconceivable. The fact of the matter is that the ticking time bomb scenario is possible even if we were to grant that its probability of occurring is extremely low. Contention 2: The false choice of pacifism I didn't set up a slippery slope argument, as you seem to be suggesting. The main point of this section was to demonstrate that war, and thus collateral damage is morally permissible. You've already conceded that defensive wars are morally justified so there isn't much else for me to say in this area. If this doesn't accurately reflect your position then please let me know. This section is very relevant to a syllogism I'm going to be introducing later on in this essay. Contention 3: Warfare and collateral damage I don't assume that you accept that the War in Iraq was morally justified. I merely used the war in Iraq to illustrate instances of collateral damage because most people, young and old, can relate to the war in Iraq. Your main point here was that intentions play a large role in determining whether or not an action is moral. I agree that intentions play a huge role in judging the morality of an action but I disagree with the way you draw a sharp dividing line between the intentions behind collateral damage and torture. There are really two sets of intentions behind torture and you seem to be fixating on just one of them, namely its function in harming another person. However, there is a larger issue here. The goal of torture, at least how I'm advocating for it, is not to needlessly cause harm to other humans, but to save life en masse. We can't simply look at the intentions of any action to determine its morality. In order to be thorough we must also view the context, goals and consequences of any given course of action. Your argument about 97% of people accepting a given moral proposition is invalid because it creates what most of us call the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Majority opinion doesn't determine the moral soundness of a choice. [1] ======= Case Pro ======= Contention: 1 The lesser of two evils 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. Conclusion Torturing a terrorist can be morally justified as a defensive action in order to prevent 1 million people from dying. Since my opponent has already conceded the first premise I will now focus on propping up the second premise, first by way of an analogy and then by way of a structured argument. Contention 2: Collateral damage vs. Torture - (In defense of Premise #2) Imagine that you are the commanding officer of the US armed forces in Iraq. Rebel fighters have smuggled a nuclear weapon into the country and are preparing to detonate it in some highly populated district within an hour. If they succeed in this diabolical mission tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians will be killed. However, there is good news. Not only do you have the ringleader of this operation in your custody but you also find papers on him that details the exact location of the detonation device for the nuclear weapon. These papers also outline how to remotely deactivate the bomb with a secret code that only the ringleader knows. If you bomb the building where the detonation device is being held you will disarm the bomb and thus avert catastrophe. Here is where things get tricky. The building where the bomb detonator is being held is right next to a school and a hospital. And if you decide to bomb it you will likely incur at least a dozen or so civilian casualties. Here are two possible options. Choice #1 You can call an air strike to bomb the enemy's base where the detonation device is being held and thus avert catastrophe. However, your choice to do this will likely incur at the minimum 12 casualties, which may include children, women, teachers etc. Take a look at the face of one of the potential casualties before you make your decision. (http://www.asiapac.org.fj...)- WARNING graphic image Choice #2 You can torture the leader of the operation for the remote disarmament codes of the nuclear weapon. Even if the torture attempt fails and the information is not extracted you will still have time to call in the air strike at the last moment. Contention 3: The principle of forfeiture- (In defense of Premise #2) People that act in such a way so as to place someone's life in jeopardy forfeit their right to life. In other words if someone tries to kill you then you can justifiably kill them in defense because they have forfeited their right to life. Imagine that my ticking time bomb scenario was exactly the same but now instead of the terrorist being in your custody pretend he is in the middle of Times Square tinkering with the bomb in an attempt to detonate it. I contend that if we would be prepared to kill such an individual on the basis that he has forfeited his right to live then it logically follows that we should be willing to temporarily subject him to pain in order to achieve the same end. The fact that this terrorist is free in one situation and contained in another is simply irrelevant. The consequences and intentions of his actions are identical in both situations. – [2] Contention 4: Methods of torture Imagine that we were to create an ideal "torture pill"- a drug that would deliver both the instruments of torture and the instruments of their utter concealment. The action of the pill would be to produce a temporary state of transitory paralysis and transitory misery of a kind that no person would willingly submit to for a second time. Imagine that the recipients of this pill after taking what looked like a short nap woke up and confessed everything about the inner workings of their organization. In the end might we want to call this a "truth pill"? ======== Conclusion ======== I have used logic to demonstrate that there are situations conceivable when torture can be morally justified. From there I went on to express why intentions are important to questions of ethics but why they also should be marginalized or even nullified when you look at situations as a whole. Indeed, the goals and consequences of any actions must be given precedence over the singular intentions of a specific act. ====== Sources ====== [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.authorsden.com... Best, Freeman