Intoscience

Quite right torture is one of many interrogation techniques. But the OP is focused around whether torture is the right thing to do not what alternatives there are. Yes we can consider alternatives, much like we can consider real life scenarios. But to answer the question directly "is it ever right to torture someone" we have to consider all possible scenarios rather than focus on the most likely scenarios. So to re-iterate, when all other options have been exhausted and you are left with only 2 options - torture or not. Is it ever possible that torture is the right thing to do? Absolutely, which ever technique is going to cause the least distress for all those involved is the most logical and morally correct action to take. No one is arguing this. Exactly, +1

Well you do, as beecee pointed out, if the victims of the crime are saved. The main point is that if you don't try you will never know, but you will know for certain if you don't try the victims are doomed. I find this morally undesirable. Logic even dictates this. When people suggest to me that I'm wasting my time buying a national lottery ticket because I'm never going to win they are most likely correct. The odds of me winning are extremely low, so as far as gambling goes it's in reality a waste of money. However, I'm prepared to keep buying a ticket because there is an extremely small chance that I might just win, and the outcome of this is that I get to win the prize that was worth trying for - You have to be in it to win it If you don't try you can never achieve, if you do try at least there is a chance, no matter how unlikely it is, you will. When all else fails and you are left in a situation where torture or do nothing are your only 2 options left, do nothing results in one outcome. No, the question is a simple one that gets over complicated by irrelevant reasoning. There's too much focus on all the if's but's and maybe's. 1.Torture is most likely very unreliable for information extraction and could be most likely result in failure. Is it proven that torture has a 100% failure rate? If so I'm happy to retract my answer to the OP and change it to a No. 2.In some situations there maybe no way to ascertain 100% guilt, granted. however when time is of the essence and you have enough information to assume the perp is guilty then this is the logical approach. 3&4. You state yourself that the clock is ticking, this applies to the victims as well as the perp being tortured. but I think the clock for the victims is far more important than the clock for the perp, would you not agree? No one says that the perp requires torturing beyond what is necessary, now you are making up scenarios. Like beecee, my concern lies with the victims facing their doom, not the perp being tortured. The perp being tortured has a good chance of survival (though some would argue doesn't deserve such), the victims face inevitably death. But hey, if you can rest easy on your choice and sleep at night happy that the choice you made was the best one, good luck. I'm not here to argue what you should believe, think or feel. In my simple mind, I follow what I believe is the logical route where I can, until there is no logical route left, then I go with my gut and/or the route that I feel is the best one to take at that given moment. We can all look back with regret and say "only if".

I'm confused by this, Torture, in the context we are talking about, would be used in an attempt to gain information that may lead to saving lives. It will either work or it won't. If it works great, you may be in a better position to save lives. If it fails the lives are doomed. If you don't try using all means at your disposal, the lives are doomed The person being tortured will either respond with the truth, or at least some useful information. Or they will say anything just to stop the torture. Or, if they are really tough/insane, keep quite and possibly lose their life. No one is arguing this, no one is saying that torture will work. The argument is that it might, even with the smallest of chances. So are the counter arguments. They claim that torture will never work and is absolutely pointless and immoral in all circumstances. Going back to the OP Is torture ever right? I'm sticking with yes, if the person being tortured has requested it for pleasurable purposes. The OP stated in the initial post to ignore the legalities and assume that the perp is guilty, where you find yourself in a situation with only 2 choices left - torture or not. I took this as meaning to focus on the question of morality of those choices, rather than the implications of trial, justice and punishment. The moral justification of using torture, considering all possible situations. The OP offered a scenario which may pull on a person's heart strings, since it appeals to parents in general, myself included. However you can take an objective approach and still conclude the same moral standing. Simply take the scenario, consider the options and implications, and then go with the most logical route in an attempt to gain a successful result. Whether the desired result is achieved is irrelevant to the moral implications of the action taken; unless the desired result is always unachievable, in which case it is not the most logical route to take.

Point noted. Apologies, I didn't realise it was confusing or an issue.

Yeah, I can only think of a cyclic universe, but these tend to assume a pre-existence with no beginning or end. Where it expands then shrinks then expands continuously for all time. Was it Sir Roger Penrose who suggests an "aeon" where the universe expands beyond any measurable size, thus by which size becomes moot and therefore the cycle starts over? I don't know the exact details. I only read popular physics books, so only have a layman's understanding of cosmology.

It is true that humans have a common ancestor to all other living things. But the tree of evolution has many branches that spawn a vast variety of fruit. Humans like other species, are just one distinct variety that has a traceable lineage distinct from other species until it converges to its most recent common ancestor which is in the "ape" variety. Yes there are missing links along the route but most evolutionists agree that humans descended from the apes.

My answers in bold, others may correct or elaborate on them.

It appears so, I'm trying to understand why torture would always be off the table regardless. This seems to me a failure to expend every possible action in an attempt to preserve the most precious of all things. Obviously my assumption is that torture might have even the slightest of chances of success. I cannot confirm this, but since this tactic is still used in modern times in some form or another, suggests that it has the possibility to work. Simplified, if all attempts that might work (even if the chance of success is almost negligible) are exhausted, then I believe (along with many others) the "right" thing has been done. It would be a tough call to make and I wouldn't like to be the person making the decisions. However, I would like to believe that I would make all attempts to save lives, and face the consequences of doing so after the event. Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't. Which one could you live with?

I don't think you are wrong, planning and having protocols in place makes perfect sense and I think we can all agree they should be followed. However, I'm not so sure that torture should never be planned in as a final attempt to save lives. It's a bit like having a self-destruct button, where no one (sane persons)ever want to use it but it's there as a very last resort. I just think, in answering the OP's question "is it ever right", we should consider all possible scenarios regardless of how unlikely, not focus on specifics. If someone can convince me, or better prove to me, that torture would fail 100% of the time in 100% of scenarios then I would happily change my answer to no. I would hope that if torture had to be employed that the torturer would be careful not to go so far as it to be fatal, though the risk is there. There will be time for a "fair" trial after the people are saved or not, when time is of the essence then on the spot judgement has to be made. Since in some scenarios the full facts may not be available, granted. However, time could be wasted trying to gain them, maybe the right thing to do is act based on the best knowledge available. Lets face it, we all often do this, though mostly with less severe consequences, noted.

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