Torture doesn't work

The argument

Torture can produce false information by harming those areas of the brain associated with memory. Chronic and severe stress compromises integrated psychological functioning, impairing recall and facilitating the incorporation of information contained in leading questions. The captive and interrogator both might not know this subtle process of incorporation has occurred. Torture fails during interrogation because it can assault our core integrated, social, psychological, and neural functioning. Overwhelmingly, experts agree that torture produces unreliable information, and that it undermines attempts to get detainees to cooperate.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Those who hold that torture can sometimes be justified argue that 'it doesn't work' is an empirical claim which, even if generally true, does not establish it never works, and that the justification debate usually turns on rare 'ticking-bomb' cases where proponents claim coercion has produced actionable information. They also note the effectiveness question is logically separate from the moral one: were torture shown to work in some case, the 'doesn't work' argument would collapse, whereas the strongest case against torture is that it is wrong even when effective. Critics thus argue this argument rests its whole conclusion on a contested empirical premise rather than on principle.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P3] 'Experts overwhelmingly agree it is unreliable' concerns the average case; it does not establish that torture never yields accurate information, which the categorical conclusion requires. [Rejecting C] Grounding the objection solely in effectiveness makes it hostage to the facts: were torture shown to work in some case, this argument would license it, which is why many opponents rest the case on principle instead.