Torture

The first premise tries to define what morality is. Yet it would be best if the definition can be expressed well because it is too broad. For example what kind of actions can be acceptable or unacceptable? Maybe adjectives should be included in the definition. Although torture does not need to be concerned in order to receive information, it is the fastest and accurate way. For example if a terrorist knew information about an attack that will occur, polices or FBI won"t sit down and talk nicely to this terrorist. If after a while this terrorist does not speak then therefore the polices will be forced to torture this terrorist. Someone who is being harmed in any way may want to stop by speaking up, in which this what the terrorist would feel. However, yes polices and other authorities do use torture as a tool to obtain information. How is torture unlawful? Who makes torture an unlawful thing? The authority? In what way may the authorities use torture for? But you said that "morality is not measured by the actions of police and other authorities". Which means that no one can actually say what is unlawful. The definition of morality can be different to polices and other authorities. Remember morality can be viewed from different point of views. Which means that the actions that authorities or polices make may not be seem as a good or bad behavior. Not everyone might know what morality really means. The information that the victim gives to the torturer may or not be true. But if they were not true after the torturer finds out that the information is false then he or she would go after the victim again, which means it would be worse for the victim. Therefore, the victim may think about it twice about lying to the torturer. In that case, I do not necessarily think that anyone can be dumb enough to lie to the torturer. In most cases, the torturer would always let go of the victim and give them a new identity, a new home and a new life. It is never the case that the victim goes back home to be killed by the people who he betrayed. If all of that were true then why lie about the information? In premise12 you mention how the definitions of positive duties are minimally controversial but that does not make sense. Because the question is what may be the certain acts that commit us to entail positive duties? I think the premise is a little too vague. It does not necessarily show what kind of acts make up a positive duties. Furthermore, what is a negative duty? In the premise it is not necessarily showing what kind of harm we tend to avoid. Physical or emotionally harm? In another statement it says that the we tend to avoid excessive harm but there are many other ways to define an excessive harm. There are many other ways to define harm. If the case was that the negative duties mean to avoid harm then wouldn"t that mean that the person would avoid lying? Therefore, that means that the victim would tell say the right information. No one would take the risk to lie and cause themselves more harm than what they have already received. Going back to one of the premises, it says that the victim may lie about the information they may have but by lying that means they are not having negative duties. In which you have defined negative duties as avoiding an excessive harm but by lying, the victim is unintentionally asking for more harm. The harm is not the torturer ultimate goal. Honestly no one would actually wake up and say "Oh I am going to torture this person because I feel like it". Therefore I believe that the torture"s goal is to get the information they want. If the case were that they do not want information then it is whatever they gain from torturing the other person. It is not the torture"s intention to harm the victim. I believe there is not one person on earth that actually would have the intention to torture someone else if nothing is gained from it. So on that note I think any torturer always has a purpose to torture someone else.