Intoscience

I'm guessing by the nature of the question and the reply by the OP that by intrinsic they mean fundamental? To answer this I'm not sure there is, and how there could be unless it was assigned, which implies a higher or conscious power that governs all life on Earth ( and possibly the universe should there be any). If you are religious you may argue that God assigns value and we humans (at least in some cultures) sit at the top of the pecking order. You may argue that the universe assigns value by producing rare and complex structures, by which the more complex and the rarer the complexity the higher the value. This doesn't mean that protection or survival of such is priority, we are examples of how this fails regularly - wars, environmental abuse, pointless destruction/killing, etc... So other than assignment by personal value, I don't see how one could encompass all into a fundamental set that was consistent across all life. As Zaptos has stated a few times, values are dynamic and personal.

I would argue that this is the main crux of the matter and I doubt if any sane person/s was/were in such an extreme situation they wouldn't be worrying about morality.

If only life was that so simple...:)

Could be either or both, a choice or a duty.

The suffering/punishment of the accuser.

A sacrifice that may be required to achieve the greater good. Which is what?

I agree, and this is why it's better (probably) to try and simplify, rather than complicate it any further than needs to be. I tried myself not to dwell on the philosophy of right and wrong, the if's and but's etc... on consideration for the answer to the OP. We all know that every situation that may arise will be unique to some degree and thus require different considerations. But the question wasn't centred around any specific scenario, those were introduced as examples by other posters. The question was - is it ever right? The premise being, could it possibly be the "right" (best course of action / lesser of the 2 evils) thing to do in a certain situation. "Right" meaning do something (attempt) rather than do nothing. I think that there could be a plausible situation where it could be the "right" thing to do, so therefore for that reason alone answered yes

Depends on your point of view.

I'm sure some would. Bottom line is, is it generally accepted that killing/torturing 1 to save many a more desirable outcome than killing many to save the life or suffering of 1? In other words, is the lesser of the 2 evils the right choice to make?

It's a bit of a moot question unless we assign a value ourselves. As Zaptos stated, in the animal kingdom where survival depends on devouring another life form then each life has a differing value to the next and is dependent on the value' r. So if I've interpreted you correctly, then no I don't think there is an intrinsic value to any life, unless one is put on it by another. Even the universe doesn't care.

Because you are arguing with me over the difference between killing or torturing someone (which there are plenty). However, I used the examples to show that though differing, killing and torturing are both terrible tactics that might be employed to achieve a similar outcome (save innocent lives), so for that act, share the same moral standing. They both, dependent on the situation, could be the "lesser" of the 2 evils and therefore the "right" thing to do.

(My reply's in bold) I'm not saying your points are not valid in certain situations, I'm just stating that they are irrelevant to the OP. If a scenario is possible, even if unlikely probable, then it counts towards the answer for the OP. We can argue over the if's, but's and maybe's all day long, keep going back and forth... it doesn't change anything.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Attraction can soon wear off if it turns out the visually attractive person has an ugly personality, similarly the opposite can happen where an ugly person has an attractive personality.

I don't understand what you mean by this? Can you elaborate please? Thanks

I believe some, maybe all, insurance companies use set a standard monetary rate for lives, certainly during a tragedy like a plane crash etc.. I've heard them state a value, something around $5m seems to be what I recall. Then there is things like pet insurance etc... But as iNow states, depends in what context and what you mean by value. There are cases where animals have sacrificed (or at least been prepared to) themselves to save others. You do hear, on occasion, where a dog has stayed by the side of their owner, even if this means starving and/or risking their own death.

Fixed that for you

Yes, in the context of the situation. I think one of the issues of this discussion is how people have/are interpreting the term "right". You either mis-interpret my intentions, or this is a cheap shot of your own? I will assume misinterpretation, In the context of this thread and based on what we are discussing then there are many similarities as Beecee has already pointed out. For example, lets say the bomber has his finger on the detonator all attempts to negotiate with him have failed, is it the "right" thing to do to shoot him dead? i.e Is the choice to shoot him dead an option that should be considered once there are no other options left? - Is the choice to torture him in hope of retrieving information that may lead to preventing the bomb from detonating an option that should be considered when there are no other options left? We can argue the statistics all day long, unless either options are doomed to 100% failure every time in all scenarios then are they not valid options to consider? And would they not be the "right" (the lesser of the 2 evils) thing to do at that defining moment when all else as failed? probably 99% of the time - no, but for 1% of the time it might just work in which case the answer would be - yes. So in answer to the OP based on the original premise of "is it ever right" then in this context and with this reasoning I believe the answer is yes. My point is that, in extreme circumstances, moral judgment and values are called into question and one has to consider the merits of the "lesser evil act".

All "ifs" and "buts", all irrelevant when time is ticking and all else has failed. The question is, is it ever right to employ torture. We all agree that torture is wrong barbaric and most likely unsuccessful (although unless anyone here is an experienced expert in this then we really don't know). +1 You are quite correct and all excellent points. But the question isn't about efficiency, experimental evidence... The question is, is it ever right to torture someone? We could easily change the argument to - is it ever right to kill someone? The moral implications and justifications are the same. I answered yes, not because I condone torture, but because in extreme circumstances when all else has failed, when there is no hope left and you are faced with imminent failure, then any chance even the slightest of chances it may work then I believe its worth a shot. We can go back and forth and argue the moral aspects, the efficiencies and the science behind using such a barbaric and immoral tactic... But when all said and done, the only time I would answer no to the question is if I knew with 100% certainty that torture would not work. "If", (and I hate using that word but hey oh) torture was proven by science & data to have a 99.9% failure rate, even then is it not worth a shot when there is nothing left to do or lose? I believe, if faced with the choice, anyone who is about to lose a loved one and is desperate would not mull over the moral, or efficiency implications.

+1 But you are focussing on all the maybe's if's and but's, many of which there are. There are and will be many unkowns in all situations. No one is saying torture is ok, we all agree that torture in any form is wrong and dehumanising and immoral... The question is, is it ever right to employ torture? I say yes, in extreme circumstances when all else has failed and there is nothing left to lose and you have one last ditch attempt to save lives. Regardless whether its statistically unlikely to be successful, at the very last moments when you are left with only one choice that will either work or it won't. If it works great, you save one or countless lives at the cost of a few who suffer (maybe for life). If it fails, well, at least All known available options were exhausted. There are 2 kinds of regret, either one you have to live with - the doing or the not doing. Which one would you live with?

Finally, an answer that makes a bit of sense (at least part of it). If the scenario can be possible then jumping or not through the hoops is not relevant to the OP. The mad bomber is a plausible scenario without too much complication. There's a bomb, many people are going to die, the person controlling the bomb is not giving up its location or prepared to disarm (seems a reasonable scenario so far to me). All attempts at negotiation and other lines of enquiry to providing a positive solution have failed. Things are now desperate and its looking highly likely that many people are going to die. Why would you not employ torture as a last ditch attempt to save lives? There is nothing left to lose!

If torture doesn't work then why is it employed at all? Why are the special forces operatives taught and trained to employ and endure torture? Seems like a waste of time and resource if your statement was true. Torture may not be effective the vast majority of the time (I don't know the stats), but when things get desperate then statistics become irrelevant, because even the slightest chance in a "no hope" situation is better than doing nothing. Desperate times may call for desperate measures.

There seems to be a lot of if's, but's and maybe's, most which are only relevant to each individual scenario and not really relevant to the crux of the matter. Regardless, I'll reiterate, All other lines of enquiry, actions, plans, attempts have failed. Time is now seriously of the essence, there is nothing left to lose, people are going to die, torture is now really the only last ditch attempt at rescue. Would you employ this tactic? If not, state your reasons for why not? for example: Because torture is statistically not very effective? Because the outcome is not likely to be positive anyhow? Because its immoral and all people have the same rights and should be treated accordingly no matter what? Because its barbaric and should not be employed by a civilised society?...

I asserted that the father would be a poor choice for the reasons I stated, and also likely to be less effective and it's less likely to be a constructive outcome, than if a "professional" was employed. It's not relevant to the question asked in the OP. The question is, is torture ever right? in other words is there any situation, any at all, where torture can be justified. In extreme circumstances the effectiveness of torture (if employed) would be crucial to the outcome and could save many innocent lives. The question is, is there no scenario where the sanity of the torturer and the suffering of the criminal might be a small sacrifice to make if the outcome is successful? There seems to be a number of people who believe that torture should never, under any circumstances, be employed regardless of the risk. I'm interested in understanding this stance and the justification for it.

Bit boring really, but I'm not much of a materialistic person. I have a cupboard draw at home where I keep all the trinkets and gifts I hold dear. Some have high monetary value others just emotional. So I guess this would be my most prized material possession(s). I do own a silver platter that has been handed down in the family since 1770, although I don't know the history behind it. My son will inherit it once I pass.

I take the same stance and agree that there maybe extreme circumstances where torture (in my humble opinion) could be justified. There are others that disagree (their opinions). I'm interested to hear the reasons why they disagree and what they may offer (if any) alternatives that would completely negate the use of torture no matter what the scenario. In my simple mind, the survival of the mass far outweighs the suffering of the few. So in desperate times, where there is no other option left, and time is ticking, then extreme measures are justified. This is my reason for answering YES to the question. I want to understand, and maybe even be convinced of the reasons, why the answer would be NO.