Torture can be morally justified

Let me first begin by once again thanking Sniperjake1994 for accepting my challenge and for choosing to debate such a difficult issue. My opponent raised contentions going in a numbered order. So, I will try to briefly touch upon them again in order to make my position that much clearer. Contention #1 He asserts that torture devolves interrogators and he further claims that torture itself is addictive. Neither of these two contentions is backed up by logic or evidence. I would encourage him to give his reasons why he thinks this argument is valid. And I would add that even if it were valid it is irrelevant to the two hypothetical situations I gave. Contention# 2 "Torture cannot guarantee guilty as charged, thus we tortured an innocent; is this justified?" What could my opponent possibly mean when he writes this? Torture is a technique not the scientific method. Torture itself cannot guarantee anyone's guilt or innocence. Contention #3 "Torture seeks out races and religion because they're the ones usually associated with it." Torture is not a conscious being; it's a technique. Because of this it cannot seek out anything. Contention number 3 is illogical and therefore can be dismissed out of hand. Contention #4 "Torture creates more enemies than allies (refer to R1)." If this were even true at all it would only be relevant as an argument against a general practice of torture. Since I am not advocating that we adopt a general practice of torture I will dismiss it as irrelevant. Contention #5 The U.S should uphold constitutionality and enforce rights because it's a big part of our ideals that we shed blood on. Torture violates constitutionality thus it is unjustified because it contradicts our morals. If we wish to hold constitutionality then torture is unjustified. Contention number 5 simply begs the question. The fact that something is constitutional/ unconstitutional does not make it moral or immoral. Gay marriage is, at the moment, unconstitutional and yet this does not make it immoral. Q.E.D. Contention #6 "Torture has long term effects on everyone involved ranging from revenge to inhumane acts." Contention number six is unsubstantiated. Torture doesn't gurantee anyone will seek revenge or engage in inhumane acts. John McCain and hundreds of Tibetan Buddhist monks have been tortured and none of them are engaging in acts of revenge. http://www.tchrd.org... Contention #6 (part 2) "An action can be said to be moral if it produces a net gain in happiness for ALL OF THOSE INVOLVED." The accused isn't happy after beaten and bruised. You call that happy!? What if you're beaten nearly to death? Because the happy net gain for the accused is none it isn't moral as described above. My opponent seems to not understand utilitarianism or the utilitarian principle. So, let me put this in terms everyone will understand. Imagine there are 1,000,000 people. At the moment each one of these people has a happiness level of +1. One of these people is a terrorist and will be tortured to save the lives of the other 999,999 people. Undoubtedly the terrorist's happiness is going to go down after being waterboarded for information. Lets just say that his happiness goes down by -10. And the people who survive are happy not to have been murdered so there happiness all goes up by a +1. In the end there are 999,999 people all with a happiness level increased by +1 from 999,999 this adds up to 1,999,998. However we must also take into consideration the drop in happiness by the person that was waterboarded. His happiness went down by 10 so you take 1,999,998 and minus 9 because he started at +1 and your going back 10; this equals 999,989. At the onset happiness levels were at 1,000,000 because we simply take 1,000,000 and multiply it by 1. After the torture has occurred and the ticking time bomb has been diffused happiness levels are at 1,999,989. In the end the net gain in happiness is 999,989. Everyone involved in the situation does not have to have an increase in his or her happiness for a net gain to occur. Contention #7 His argument here is completely orthogonal to the issue at hand. He raises a set of assumptions none of which are applicable to either of my 2 hypothetical situations. Contention #9 My opponent tried to weasel his way out of making an ethical choice in my 2nd hypothetical situation by creating a fictitious 3rd option for himself and choosing it. A tech whiz that could hack the security door was not part of the scenario I outlined. You know that, I know that and everyone who is reading this debate carefully knows that. Your flippancy isn't going to win you points with anyone. Most people don't appreciate shenanigans of this sort. You can't accuse me of creating a false dichotomy with my hypothetical situation because in all reasonableness there were only three options and I had already eliminated one of them. Contention #10. "Torture=racism:" Look, we can't have a rational debate if you choose to advance positions which are blatantly illogical. Torture doesn't equal racism and no amount of casuistry from you is going to change that. It's certainly true that racist people can use torture but this doesn't indict torture as being racist. I have confidence that anyone viewing this will be able to see through your shoddy argument. My opponent wrote the following and quoted me in the process. "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." He is clearly attempting to ditch is position." How am I trying to ditch my position? The line you quoted me on was in my first paragraph of my first post. Perhaps you should have read it more carefully. "Because torture is illegal it is unjustified." You're begging the question with your comment. The fact that something is illegal or legal is not what makes it justified or unjustified. Slavery used to be legal. So, by your own line of reasoning back when it was legal to own slaves that behavior would have been justified. My opponent wrote the following. "Everyone is born with natural rights; they have a value of infinity. Because society is made up of hundreds so we'll say 500 times infinite is still infinite." The reductio ad absurdum argument I'm about to use will show how your position is untenable. 1 person has a value of infinity. 1,000,000 people also have a value of infinity. Infinity = Infinity Since infinity equals infinity both groups have the same value Therefore murdering 1 person is morally equivalent to murdering 1,000,000 people since an equal amount of value is lost in both acts. Need I say more? My opponent's contention is illogical. My opponent has demonstrated his unwillingness to confront difficult moral issues by his refusal to respond to either of my 2 hypothetical situations. Indeed he merely asserts that they are unfair, which they are not. They aren't trick questions and are in no way intended to corner my opponent into an untenable position. These two ethical dilemmas I raised really are the crux of my argument. And by refusing to tackle them he demonstrates the weakness of his own position. If my opponent had the courage of his convictions then he should simply have written that he would let his daughter die so that he wouldn't have to torture the madman. This would have at the very least allowed him to be intellectually honest and consistent. To sum up my argument in short here it is in one sentence. Torture can yield benefits in extreme situations, which far outweigh the ethical concerns that arise merely from using it, thereby making torture ethical. As such the resolution that torture can be morally justified remains affirmed. All the best, Freeman