The use of Torture can be Morally Permissible

Thanks to Pro for the debate, and thanks to anyone who does vote. I hope this is as much fun to read as it was in which to participate. Now, back to our regularly scheduled program, already in progress... Why Magnitude Is IrrelevantWhat Pro seems to be missing here is that I was conceding that if he could simply prove that torturing one person could conceivably, or actually, save two people, then I would consider that a net moral positive, he would have proven the moral permissibility of torture, and thus won the debate. He should have embraced this concession, but instead railed against it for reasons I still don’t quite understand.Unfortunately for Pro, he failed so miserably in his argument that he couldn’t even meet this generously low standard.Increasing The Intensity of Torture Increases The Unreliability Of The Information ReceivedIn my last argument, I noted (and sourced) that the stress from torture releases cortisol into the prefrontal cortex as well as the hippocampus, and this causes any information received from a torture victim to be inherently unreliable.Pro’s counter to this, because he noticed that the test referenced in the journal article that I sourced was conducted on soldiers, was that in his scenarios, he would simply torture the subjects more intensely. This was implied when he noted that U.S. soldiers in that study weren’t permanently harmed (ergo, there was no restriction on the subjects in his scenarios to cause this level of harm). What Pro failed to realize with this utterly ridiculous counterargument was that a more intense brand of torture would release more cortisol into the victim’s brain, which would make the information that they recited EVEN LESS RELIABLE.This, into addition to being even more morally deplorable, essentially assures a failure of any positive result, and it should be obvious to anyone before they engage in the more intense torture that it ensures a failure of their goal, thus it fails both of Pro’s criteria even more spectacularly than the otherwise spectacular failure that Pro described in his original, unmodified hypotheticals.The Obvious Counterargument...That Pro Didn’t, And Couldn’t, MakeMuch of my argument revolved around the fact that torture had a greater likelihood of failure when compared with the alternatives available. In fact, it has almost no chance of success, and this is demonstrated by the fact that Pro was able to offer no example of any torture extracted information that was, in any way, reliable.One example and my argument is significantly weakened - and yet Pro was unable to offer even that small bit of real world evidence to back up his position, because his position is untenable.Lie Detectors Don’t WorkThis is really the point in Pro’s final argument that I began laughing hysterically. Time is already of the essence, his method of information extraction is already lengthier than traditional methods, but no worries because the actors in his scenarios will be able not only to pull a lie detector out of thin air, but also someone with the training to perform the test.Even if the magical fairy tale land existed where this was possible, there are two problems:1. Lie detectors are unreliable (this is why their results are inadmissible in a court of law)2. The cortisol released into the victim’s brain has the effect of confusing the victim such that they have no idea that the information they are offering is unreliable (stated and sourced previously). Even if lie detectors worked, which there is much evidence to suggest they don’t, in the case of stress induced confessions, the person confessing is unlikely to know that the information they gave was false.Additionally, lie detectors are considered to cause a stress great enough as to be categorized as torture themselves, and would only serve to waste time and offer no assistance in the process.Let’s say they did work, though, but that the results showed that the victim was lying. What then? More torture? It didn’t work the 1st time, but maybe if we just do it some more, then it will really work, right?I already noted why this is an inherently ridiculous and logically fallacious conclusion.[see sources regarding lie detectors below]Hostage SituationsI did not, as Pro stated, ignore his third (second, really) hypothetical in my previous argument. I had already stated all the reasons why it was a spurious argument in the 2nd round (1st round of arguments), but Pro challenged my conclusions and then virtually ignored them because they weren’t sourced. In the last round, I sourced them. In the interest of saving voters from unnecessary redundancy, I made a note of the crux of my initial argument against capitulating to hostage takers, and then I noted the source which completely backed everything I stated in my argument against this practice in the previous round. I have no plans to expand on the argument here either as Pro did nothing whatsoever to refute it. How could he? It’s common knowledge and common sense, and it also happens to be backed up with scientific evidence and expert opinion.The Nature Of Morality...AGAINHere, I will be a bit redundant, because it is important for this point to be iterated - Morality comes down to a choice. Until one reaches the point of a choice where one or more options are moral and one or more options are immoral (i.e. the choice to eat a banana instead of an apple, given the methods of cultivation for each is as non-damaging as possible, serves no purpose in the determination of morality, while choosing to eat a hamburger over an apple, conceivably does). Moreover, when the outcome of a choice is unknown, the choice must be made with the intent to be moral for it to be moral, and intent is a function of the knowledge that the person has when making the decision. The fact that a moral outcome accidentally occurs has no bearing on the morality of the person who made what they knew to be the immoral decision, or the less moral decision, simply because a lucky set of events, independent of their choice, lead to a positive outcome. They must know the moral outcome would occur, or have a reasonable belief that it had the greatest possibility to occur, given the other choices available to them, or else their initial immoral decision remains immoral, because it was immoral.ConclusionIn none of Pro’s hypotheticals would there be any chance of “success” which lead to moral plausibility under either of his criteria, and because in order to try to fit his increasingly illogical and fantastical scenarios into his own success criteria, Pro brought in an interrogation expert (lie detector tech), after specifically refusing to imbue his actors with this expertise when I proposed it, the actors in his hypotheticals would have been well aware of the imminent failure of Pro’s chosen methods for them..The only way a moral outcome that could have arisen from any of the examples that Pro offered would have been through pure chance or a reversal of human nature as we know it, and since morality is not a function of luck, nor is it plausible that the human psyche will begin magically operating contrary to how it does currently, Pro has failed in all aspects of his argument and the votes cast in this debate should reflect that fact.Sources (re: lie detectors)http://www.nytimes.com...http://www.enotes.com...http://www.chinadaily.com.cn... - Yep, the Chinese think lie detectors are unreliable and also a form of torture. THE CHINESE!!! C’mon...