Torture is sometimes morally permissible.

Resolved: Torture is sometimes morally permissible. I thank my opponent for instigating this fascinating topic. He claims to have never found an argument as to why torture is categorically wrong; I hope to provide one. Definitions Morality: A code of conduct put forward by a society; used to determine right and wrong. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Wikipedia) Morally permissible: Allowed or permitted by the rules of morality. I recommend that the definition of torture be narrowed as such: the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone defenseless to force them to do or say something. To elaborate further, torture relies on the idea that when subjected to intense pain, a person will do virtually anything to stop it, such as revealing important secrets or performing actions that he would not otherwise perform. Burden of Proof As it is my opponent making the positive statement, he must prove that torture is sometimes morally permissible. He also has the burden of proof due to social perspective: hurting another person is wrong by default, so he must prove that it is sometimes not wrong. ======== Case Pro ======== The Daughter Scenario My opponent's Daughter Scenario is overly complex, and flawed for many reasons. It speaks for the unsoundness of my opponent's position that the scenario is so elaborate: a madman took your daughter with no clear motive, he wants to dismember her for no clear reason, the door is impregnable, and the man is merciless. It is extraordinarily unlikely that such a scenario would occur in reality. Even so, it is flawed. In the place of moral backing for why torture is justified, all he has is a simple appeal to emotion. While convincing on the surface, this is not a logically sound case. Collateral Damage War is truly an unfortunate situation. But is it an applicable analogy? Inevitably, no. Killing civilians during wartime is wrong. But during a war, it is unavoidable. Does this make war wrong? Not necessarily. This is where the analogy breaks down. During war, the motive is a noble one. Soldiers are fighting for their country. Civilian casualties may be suffered along the way, but that is a side effect and was never the intention. But when a suspect is tortured, the intention is to inflict pain on a defenseless human being. The ends do not justify the means. When discussing moral imperatives, it is not the outcome but the intention which is most vital. Unreliability of Torture I will talk more about this in my case. I only wish to point out one sentence: "The odds that our interests will be furthered in an act of torture need only equal the chance that any innocent child will be killed in one of our bombing raids." This appears to be a complete non sequitur. I would appreciate an elaboration. ======== Case Con ======== I am going to make a dual overlaying Deontological/Consequentialist case. Contention 1: Torture is unreliable. 1a. In the case of torturing suspected terrorists (the scenario most applicable to the modern world), it is unknown whether the subject is a terrorist or not. If the subject is not a terrorist and therefore does not have the necessary information, then torture merely inflicts harm on an innocent individual without just cause. 1b. Even when the victim has the necessary information, torture frequently fails to extract it. Vietnamese torture of American soldiers had a success rate of only 5%, for example [1]. Many subjects have been known to be tortured to death before relinquishing information [2]. 1c. When subjected to extreme torture, the subject will do nearly anything to get out of it. This includes fabricating lies to support what the interrogators want to hear. My opponent purports that the benefits of successful torture outweigh the detriments of failed torture. However, with a success rate of only 5%, this is not so. Just how many innocents is my opponent willing to needlessly harm in order to acquire the necessary information? 1d. When subjected to the level of pain necessary to "break" the subject, the subject frequently becomes so disoriented that he is incapable of rational thought. He becomes unaware of the distinction between the truth, his cover story or any other model of reality. ========== Contention 2: There are better alternatives. Torture is not the only method of information extraction. "Brain fingerprinting" (http://www.brainwavescience.com...) is not only infinitely more humane than torture, but is in many cases more reliable. We should, instead of investing resources in more acute methods of torture, research alternative methods of extracting information. ========== Contention 3: Torture is harmful. The psychological effects of torture can be lasting (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org...). Even if no physical damage is inflicted, there is still temporary physical pain and lasting emotional pain. The harm caused by torture is indisputable. No matter the purpose, it is morally bankrupt to so greatly harm another human being. Proponents of torture attempt to justify torture by pointing to the benefits. But what are benefits compared to intentionally inflicting great suffering on a person? Even if torture regardless of all evidence turns out to save lives, it does not matter when a single life is placed in jeopardy. Life has infinite value. This is one of the great axioms of morality. And no summation of infinities is larger than a single infinity. The proponents of torture value the lives of some innocents above the lives of others. They attempt to place value on human life, which simply cannot be done. Supporting torture, no matter the circumstance, is an irrational and untenable position. ========== References [1] Stockdale, James Bond. (2001). Courage under fire. In Department of Philosophy and Fine Arts, United States Military Academy (Eds.), Moral dimensions of the military profession (5th edn.) (pp. 321-334). P. 328. [2] Aussaresses, Paul. (2002). The Battle of the Casbah: Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism in Algeria 1955-57. New York: Enigma.—Robin Bhatty contributed this example.