Torture can be morally justified

I would hope that everyone reading judges our arguments on the merits and reasons that support them. With formalities out of the way let us begin. Hmm…I'm afraid you chased down a few red herrings in your last essay. I tried to save you from this when I wrote, "I am not arguing that torture should be made legal. Torture, like theft, could be ethical under certain parameters and still be against the law. Nor am I arguing that a general practice of torture can be made from the scenario I outlined above. " Alas, my efforts appear to have been for not. Consequently, much of your last essay targeted terrain that I have never thought to occupy. I did hear some bomb-blasts in the distance. They were magnificent. "Definitions (oxford dictionary): Torture-the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone defenseless as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain. Justified-having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason, or moral. " I have no qualms with your definitions. However I would like to remind our viewers that my argument in no way entails sadism or torturing someone for mere pleasure. My opponent wrote the following. "AFF Rebuttal: My opponent has not given any moral reasons why torture is moral thus there is no reason to support his claim. THERE IS NO REASON TO JUSTIFY TORTURE. His example about the ticking time bomb cannot be confined because that is one hypothetical example that has a very low chance of success. " My opponent seems to be a bit unfamiliar with moral philosophy. Even if the probability for my ticking time bomb scenario were 1 in 100 raised to the 1,000,000,000,000 power that would in no way negate my contention. What is at odds here is what would the moral thing be to do if that situation ever did arise. How improbable such an event would be is simply irrelevant to the issue at hand. Secondly I did give an argument for torture being moral in some cases when I wrote "What I wish to argue is that torture, as unsavory as it may be, has utilities which in rare situations far outweigh its negative attributes thereby rendering it moral. " I will further elaborate on this point. An action can be said to be moral if it produces a net gain in happiness for all of those involved. Torture at least in the hypothetical situation I raised does just that. Therefore we can acknowledge that torture can in fact be moral. My opponent stated the following. "As the torturer devolves into a more primitive being, he practices even more lethal techniques that threaten humanity's ethical standards. " You've just committed the slippery slope fallacy. My opponent stated the following. Washington Post states: "Torture is never justified. " You've just appealed to authority. My opponent stated the following. "In any extreme situation the interrogator must have previous experiences, but as described above this will only cause the interrogation to become excessively violent and out of hand without the guarantee of gaining useful information. How is this justified? It's not. " You've just created a straw man argument. "1. Torture cannot guarantee the suspected is always guilty. Usually the suspected is an innocent. Torture an innocent that has done no wrong contradicts the human ethical standards therefore it isn't justified. What harm has the innocent done? " I could simply refute this by saying that torture is only ever justified, in extreme situations, if the guilt of the captive involved is beyond reasonable doubt. My opponent stated the following. "The use of torture undermines our moral credibility and makes a lie of any claims that we stand for democracy or even decency. " I would actually argue the opposite. If we were to let millions of people die when we could have saved them by torturing one person that makes a lie of the claim that we stand for decency. My opponent stated the following. "THERE IS NO REASON TO JUSTIFY TORTURE. " The absolutism with which you state your position is going to be your downfall. Allow me to raise a second hypothetical situation. Imagine that you have a daughter. And further imagine that a madman has taken this daughter of yours captive. He has set her in a special room where he has rigged a machine on a timer, which would slowly dismember her before ultimately killing her once it goes off. For the sake of the argument let us assume that room can only be accessed by a security code on a door that is impregnable. As luck would have it you manage to capture this madman. As he sits in custody he happily gloats about how your child will die in 15 minutes once the machine timer goes off. A wry smile creeps across his face as he informs you that even if you found the room where your daughter has been held captive it would still be impossible for you to save her. As luck would have it another breakthrough happens. A police officer radios in to inform you that they have found the room where your daughter is being held. Unfortunately the officer cannot enter because, after all, the door is 100% impregnable. However the door does have a keypad and if the right code were entered it would unlock the door thereby allowing you to save your daughter. At this point your only options would be to wait and let your daughter die. Or you could torture the man and try to get the security could that could save your daughter. Let us also assume, for the sake of convenience, that he is unreasonable and will not respond to your pleas for mercy. Please choose one of those two options. I suspect that after serious reflection you will rethink your absolutist position on the use of torture. Do not write back saying that the situation I outlined is so fantastical that it doesn't merit a serious response. As I have demonstrated earlier whether or not a situation is plausible doesn't change what the moral thing to do would be if the situation actually arose. And don't even think about saying that you would try to break through the walls or something to get to your daughter. That would be a violation of the parameters I set up. My opponent stated the following. "Torture is unjustified because it favors racism. " I must admit that I'm a bit surprised to see my opponent raising the boogeyman of racism. It should be perfectly obvious to anyone reading this debate that there is nothing racist about my argument in theory or practice. On a separate but related note it should also be perfectly obvious that Islam is not a race. This is but one of the many illogical ideas that float around in the echo chamber of American political discourse. As such no further comment or contentions from my side will be necessary. My opponent should choose to concede this point and we should both move on from there. The resolution that torture can be morally justified remains affirmed. All the best, Freeman