With torture, the end justifies the means

The argument

Proponents of this position argue that torture is acceptable within a narrow class of cases — "ticking-bomb" scenarios, where it can save the lives of fellow citizens. The scenario is defined by its time constraint: whether it's an issue of national security or the potential death of a kidnapped toddler, the people at risk can only be reached if crucial information is obtained quickly, and torture might be the only means of eliciting it fast enough to rescue them. The structure of the argument is consequentialist. It does not deny that torture is a serious wrong; it holds that the wrong has to be weighed against what follows from refusing it, and that a prohibition maintained regardless of consequences amounts to accepting deaths that could have been prevented. On that reasoning, information is sometimes more valuable than morals, and where lives are at stake and it is for the good of the country, proponents contend it would be best to put aside morals and sympathy. Public opinion is offered as evidence that the intuition is widely shared rather than a philosopher's construction. Although torture may not be legal in America, 63% of Americans believe that torturing suspected terrorists can be a justifiable way of extracting information from them — a majority holding, in effect, that the legal prohibition is stricter than the moral judgement most people actually make. What the argument claims, then, is not that torture is generally permissible but that an absolute rule against it cannot be sustained. If there exists even one case in which torture would save lives that nothing else could save, then in that case the end justifies the means, and torture can be justified.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Information extracted under torture is low quality, as there's no way to assess their veracity in time and the tortured can just make it up to prevent tortures from delivering pain. Torture can be used to induce the tortured to say anything the torturer wants them to say, even if it is false.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The ticking-bomb case stipulates everything that would have to be known in advance: that this person holds the information, that it is current, and that torture will extract it in time. None of these is knowable before the fact, which is why the scenario works as a thought experiment and has never described an actual case. [Rejecting P2] The trade-off assumes reliable information is obtainable. Torture is well documented to produce whatever the interrogator seems to want, since a person in pain has every incentive to say something and no way to be believed by telling the truth — so the benefit side of the calculation is largely illusory, while the cost is certain. [Rejecting P3] What a majority believes is not a reason a practice is justified. Public support is a fact about opinion, and the prohibition in law and treaty is not the kind of question polling answers. [Rejecting C] The conclusion also omits costs the premises never enter: interrogations sent down false leads, detainees later found innocent, reciprocal treatment of one's own personnel, and the disappearance of an absolute prohibition once any exception is admitted.