Torture is sometimes morally permissible.

Here is how I see our debate playing out so far. Your approach to moral questions seems to be very deontological. You more or less confirm this when you quote Immanuel Kant in your essay. I, on the other hand, take a very teleological view of ethics. In particular I draw my inspiration from the utilitarian tradition, John Stewart Mill, John Rawls, Peter Singer etc. ====== Case Con ====== I'm ok with your definition of torture. =========================================================== Your position seems to be something close to the following. Let the heavens fall and hell be raised so long as justice prevails. This seems like a noble position to hold but it unfortunately does not sufficiently account for the complexities of our world. If torture were always wrong, as you claim, then a few things would logically follow. Torture, under this view, would still be wrong even if we knew that by not using it tens of millions of people would die. So, here is my challenge to you. I would wish that you create a short paragraph expanding upon your position. It should be along the lines of "Millions of people should be allowed to die in a nuclear explosion even if torture was the only feasible means to save them because…" It shouldn't be so hard to construct such a paragraph if torture is always wrong, as you would have me believe. If you choose to not respond I will automatically assume that you don't have a coherent position. =========================================================== "The collateral damage analogy is invalid because it's irrelevant. The fact that our country kills innocent civilians during war does not make it morally permissible. It clearly does not make torture morally permissible, especially since the intentions and objectives in combat and torture are often so different." I have the lurking suspicion that you have fundamentally misunderstood my argument. My argument for the use of torture is an argument by analogy based on our willingness to accept collateral damage. So long as I can demonstrate the two are analogous and that collateral damage is morally permissible then my argument can stand. =========================================================== "Your argument has a huge flaw in that it asserts that because we do something evil or morally depraved, that makes it morally acceptable." I made no such argument. I think that collateral damage is morally permissible because it is unavoidable in the context of war. And the only way to avoid collateral damage is to avoid war at all times, which I view as a far worse position to adopt. Even the "smart" bombs we use are likely to incur collateral damage. =========================================================== "Building rapports with detainees, instead of torturing them, helped the U.S. military track down and kill Abu Masub al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq." This is completely irrelevant to the debate. The ticking time bomb scenario I outlined does not provide sufficient time for us to build a rapport with terrorists or to convince them of their own folly. Obviously if there is no imminent danger we should try to build trust with terrorists in our custody that may have useful information. You're pushing on an open door with that assertion. =========================================================== "International law is quite clear on the subject. Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Once again this contention is absolutely irrelevant. Unless you beg the question by claiming that law makes an action moral/ immoral this has nothing to do with the resolution. The resolution I created was not "Torture is legally sanctioned under International law." =========================================================== "I think it is clear that torture does not uphold the dignity or rights of others. It degrades one's dignity and violates one's rights. Not only does it cause physical pain, but the psychological pain it causes can often be worse." It's clear that torture can cause pain but it is even clearer that war causes far worse. Torture will not leave us with amputees; it won't leave us with orphaned children; it won't leave women disemboweled and it wont accidentally cause schools to be bombed. War not only degrades the dignity of people it maims and kills them on a fairly predictable basis. Even though collateral damage is not directed at anyone it is more or less guaranteed to occur. =========================================================== "Information obtained by torture is often unreliable because many people will be willing to say anything if it can get the pain to stop." I've already addressed this. So, if anyone wants to know my position they can reread my seventh paragraph of my first round. However there is something I would like to add. Even if torture were only 5% reliable, as some would claim, this is more than a sufficient basis to justify its use in extreme situations. If there were even a 5% or 1 in 20 chance that we could stop a nuclear bomb by our use of torture to extract information then we should not waver in our resolve to employ it. =========================================================== "As long as the resolution contains the phrase "morally permissible", my opponent cannot just justify torture in certain situations." Your slight of hand will not go unnoticed. Attempting to alter the resolution to your own advantage is no small infraction of the rules of debate. It would appear that you understood this when you wrote, "Torture is never morally permissible." You and I both know that the resolution is "Torture is sometimes morally permissible." In order to win all I need to do is produce one or two scenarios where torture can be morally justified. I need not make a universal or general argument for the practice of torture. ====== Case Pro ====== And now without further delay here is my trump card. Premise#1 It is morally acceptable to knowingly incur collateral damage to prevent 1 million people from dying in the context of a defensive war. Premise #2 Taking a course of action that will knowingly incur collateral damage is far worse than torturing a convicted terrorist for information if the ends to these scenarios are both the same. Premise # 3 By analogy torturing a convicted terrorist to prevent 1 million people from dying is less ethically wrong than taking a course of action that will knowingly incur collateral damage if the goal is also to save 1 million people. Conclusion If Premise number 1 and 2 are true then torture can be morally justified as a defensive action to prevent 1 million people from dying. I would venture a guess that premise number 1 is uncontroversial, at least to reasonable people. The rest of the argument hinges upon premise #2 being correct. If premise #2 were correct then 3, and 4 would logically follow. If you think the argument is flawed then you will have to logically demonstrate why acting in a way that guarantees the deaths of innocent civilians is less wrong than torturing a convicted terrorist if the ends are both the same. Honestly I would be dumbstruck if someone could successfully argue this but I'm more than willing to accept the fact that I may be wrong. Frankly I think this argument is so forceful that it is almost rhetorical but I am more than eager to have you point out any flaws in it. All the best, Freeman Sources http://www.ethicapublishing.com...