Torture is sometimes morally permissible.

He has shown a level of patience and thoughtfulness in his response that is not characteristic of many other debaters on the site. ======================= Case Pro- Response to criticism ======================= Contention 1: I'm "resorting to red herrings"- Realist You seem to take issue with my use of pictures in my last debate and considered it to be a sign of my desperation. It's not a matter of me being desperate somehow; it's a matter of me giving much needed perspective. I'm not at all afraid of the comparison between torture and collateral damage or having you use pictures to illustrate that difference. In fact I'm more than willing to make the direct comparison myself. Pictures of Collateral damage: . http://la.indymedia.org... (It's a lot different when you're just looking at statistics on a piece of paper isn't it? ) Picture of Waterboarding: . http://eurthisnthat.com... (I don't have access to any actual pictures of waterboarding, for obvious reasons, but I think you get the idea at any rate. ) In my opinion it requires a fairly calloused and blinkered person to see the two pictures and conclude that torture is a "moral abomination" while acting in a way that guarantees the death and misery of children is perfectly acceptable. People like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others that are involved in organizations like Al Qaeda can more or less have their "innocence" ruled out. It should be obvious to us that the occasional misapplication of torture should be far more troubling than collateral damage: after all, there are no infants or children stationed at Guantianimo bay, just rather scrofulous young men, many of whom were caught in the direct act of trying to kill our soldiers. Contention 2: Methods of torture I know enough about medicine and chemistry to know that the creation of a torture pill isn't beyond the reach of our current scientific capabilities. There is nothing magical about the substances that go into anesthetics; antibiotics or any of the drugs the pharmacetical industries create for that matter. There are already chemical substances in existence that create temporary paralysis [1] and there are literally dozens of different non-lethal chemicals that produce states of transitory misery. Perhaps you were unaware that this was the case. I also know enough about bio ethics committees and international law to know that the creation of such a pill would currently be nearly impossible because virtually no government organization would willingly grant money to a company for the purpose of creating a torture pill. My point in all of this is, of course, that torture doesn't have to be needlessly barbaric or include methods that involve electric drills and blowtorches. Contention 3: Arguementum ad populum fallacy- "I'm sorry but the overwhelming majority concensus is what determines what is morally acceptable in a given society at a given time. "- Realist It would appear that my opponent has begun to manufacture fallacious arguments in earnest with the hopes that they will earn him favor. He asserts that majority opinion determines the answer to moral conundrums. My opponent demonstrates nothing more with this claim than his obvious ability to construct fallacious arguments and then defend them once his errors have been pointed out. My opponents reasoning can be, and has been, used to defend slavery, racism, genocide, and murder not just in our modern context but also in centuries past. Even if everyone in my country decided that Australians deserved to be extirpated from the planet by means of nuclear warfare that would not make such an action morally cogent. Contention 4: "Your inability to distinguish between what is practical and what is moral is the fundamental flaw in your argument thus far, in my opinion. "- Realist I'm very familiar with the two hypothetical situations you gave involving the train and the patients in need of transplants. If you are trying to show me why my reasoning is in error by citing these examples then I'm afraid you have failed in this project. Those situations, along with stealing my cell phone, are inapplicable because they are constructed from a false analogy. In all three situations you outlined the persons that would be killed or harmed are 100 % innocent. The man in the waiting room at the hospital didn't infect the other 5 people with a disease that would cause them to need a transplant nor did the lone man on the train tracts construct the scenario he is now apart of. If the single person sitting on the train tracks had set up this diabolical state of affairs then I think most sensible people wouldn't have a problem diverting the train to kill him to save the other five. ======== Conclusion ======== People that place millions of others in jeopardy by their malevolence or negligence cannot be said to have a right to life or many other rights that are guaranteed to free people. If we are willing to kill terrorist leaders by an appeal to this principle then we should also be willing to subject them to temporary discomfort to achieve that same end. Further, if we are willing to kill innocent children to save lives then it follows that we should also be willing to torture palpably guilty terrorists to achieve this same goal. I take it for granted that torture may have negative long-term affects. This gets factored in when I make my argument. I also factor in the long-term affects of children having limbs blown off in instances of collateral damage. We simply cannot ignore how the consequences of our action or inaction accrue as we make our decisions about ethics. To be opposed to the torture of a terrorist in certain situations is little more than being in favor of condemning millions of men, women and children to death and considering this action to be morally courageous. It's ironic that I'm posting this on the 8th anniversary of the September 11 hijackings; the day those 19 pious men decided to show our pious nation the social benefits of absolute religious certainty. Those among us that are at least 18 all know what it looks like to watch nearly 3000 people be murdered and reduced to ash by jet fuel. If it were possible, I would have had absolutely no moral qualms with torturing Osama Bin Laden on September 10 2001 if there were even one chance in a hundred we could have prevented this tragedy. Best, Freeman ====== Sources ====== [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...