I think you’re making some fair points, and I can see your point of view.
But I don’t agree.
Context matters. Killing, for example, is wrong when it is murder, and right when it is in defense. The mere act of killing itself cannot be extricated from the context of “why”.
Most everybody would agree, I expect, that torture merely for sport is abhorrent. But the exigencies of context are not easily— or indeed wisely— ignored.
To wit: sparing any suffering of the guilty, if it allows the suffering of the innocent, is wrong.
When information must be gained in order to prevent the suffering of innocents, the most important thing is the effectiveness of the method. Not all methods work the same on all subjects. Every subject is different, but every subject has a combination that will unlock their tongue.
When finding that combination matters, willfully failing to discover it is tantamount to complicity. It then puts the burden for the act on those who could have prevented it but chose not to. They cannot claim any moral high ground. To pretend that theirs is the morally superior position because they didn’t cause any pain to some terrorist at the expense of a busload of kids splattered all over the road by a bomb— is a cop-out.
IMHO
Odd, I see no one responding to my mention of chemicals that loosen the tongue. Those work without the torture. Am I to assume that our agencies are denied access to these substances, or that torture is the preferred method of enlightenment?
Thank you for your civil reply to me. I am, after all, voicing my moral assessment and hard-earned opinion.