Talking about "the ends justifying the means" is problematic. If the ends don't justify the means, what does? What we're really talking about is whether a particular end can override more universal ends.
Is there a universal end which is always at odds with torture? I don't think so, unless your universal end excludes all forms of punishment. Is there really a moral argument that says that sending a criminal to jail is OK, but inflicting seven lashes is wrong? What about giving the defendant a choice between the two punishments; would that be wrong? (I'm assuming that appropriate care would be taken not to endanger the defendant's health.)
The real problem with torture is more the practical one that once allowed at all, it becomes too attractive. People such as our new AG, who justify torture in some cases, probably started by thinking it was justified if it could get vital information out of hardened terrorists. But it didn't stop there, and led to Abu Ghraib. Some people just enjoy inflicting torture.
If torture were to be justified at all, there would have to be strong legal fences around it, as with any other severe punishment. As a practical matter, I wouldn't trust the US government to erect appropriate fences. Torture as a secret policy is far too dangerous to allow.
(no subject)
Talking about "the ends justifying the means" is problematic. If the ends don't justify the means, what does? What we're really talking about is whether a particular end can override more universal ends.
Is there a universal end which is always at odds with torture? I don't think so, unless your universal end excludes all forms of punishment. Is there really a moral argument that says that sending a criminal to jail is OK, but inflicting seven lashes is wrong? What about giving the defendant a choice between the two punishments; would that be wrong? (I'm assuming that appropriate care would be taken not to endanger the defendant's health.)
The real problem with torture is more the practical one that once allowed at all, it becomes too attractive. People such as our new AG, who justify torture in some cases, probably started by thinking it was justified if it could get vital information out of hardened terrorists. But it didn't stop there, and led to Abu Ghraib. Some people just enjoy inflicting torture.
If torture were to be justified at all, there would have to be strong legal fences around it, as with any other severe punishment. As a practical matter, I wouldn't trust the US government to erect appropriate fences. Torture as a secret policy is far too dangerous to allow.