Torture is sometimes morally permissible.

I do appreciate the clarity and thoughtfulness of your response. I've ceased to be amazed when debates like this fail to end in a proper meeting of the minds. Our views on these matters could not be any more divergent so we must let the voters decide who made the more reasonable case. ======= Case Con ======= "As humans, we are developed enough and rational enough to recognize the rights and dignity of others. In the first round, my opponent conceded that torture violates human rights. In recognizing these human rights, my opponent and I acknowledge that it's morally wrong to deprive people of them. " The morality of an action, in my view, is dependent upon its consequences. There really couldn't be any more divergence in our two views. ====================== "The argument did not explicitly make the point that because we are willing to accept collateral damage, we somehow make it morally acceptable. First of all, it's an argumentum ad populum to assume because people "accept" something, they make it morally permissible. " I didn't appeal to the crowd when I claimed that collateral damage was morally acceptable. I claimed that if we are willing to accept collateral damage then we should also be willing to use torture in certain circumstances. I later gave an argument why collateral damage was morally acceptable when I wrote; "I think that collateral damage is morally permissible because it is unavoidable in the context of war. And the only way to avoid collateral damage is to avoid war at all times, which I view as a far worse position to adopt. Even the "smart" bombs we use are likely to incur collateral damage. " =================== "The problem in my opponent's line of thinking comes with the first premise. This premise is just a claim, as there has been little evidence to suggest that it is morally acceptable. " I'm not sure why you're going down this path considering that you agree with me on this subject. Indeed, you more or less conceded premise #1 when you wrote the following, "I believe in the Just War doctrine as outlined in paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I also believe that collateral damage in war is inevitable, though actions should be taken to make sure it occurs as seldom as possible. " If you want to deny the legitimacy of the first premise then that's fine with me. But your not going to be able to do this without repudiating what you had written earlier. For those that have forgotten here is my argument one more time. 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 less ethically wrong 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. ======================= "This is irrelevant because something is morally wrong, regardless of other actions. Rather than showing that torture is morally permissible, my opponent states in the third premise that torture is "less ethically wrong". This implies that torture is ethically wrong. " The use of torture is unfortunate, no doubt about that. But in certain situations it can be the lesser of two evils and thus the moral choice. That's what I was driving at when I wrote that it's less ethically wrong than alternatives in some scenarios. ======================= "Using the ends to justify violating rights sets a dangerous precedent. It sets a precedent that shows that someone can have their basic human liberties taken away if another believes it will help out society or humanity in the end. This can lead down a dangerous road, and it will only be worse for society at that point. " You've just committed the slippery slope fallacy. Did you honestly think I wouldn't notice? ====== Case Pro ====== Allow me to take you on one last thought experiment. I suspect that it will put our two views up to the ultimate test. 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 part of the country 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 know the exact location of the detonation device that can explode the warhead. In fact 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 your two 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, children, women, teachers etc. 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. If you believe that choice #2 represents the more ethical decision, as I do, then I would deeply appreciate your vote. If you believe that choice #1 represents the height of ethical wisdom then, by all means, vote for my opponent. Choose wisely comrades; people's lives are on the line. Best, Freeman