Quote Originally Posted by MrShrike View Post
Well it's not that simple. Like torture, killing is also wrong, probably even moreso than torture.

And yet that's not the whole story. Let's look at the idea of "killing is wrong" connection to a hypothetical situation.

Principle: Killing is wrong.

Scenario: You see a man standing over a child, about to kill the child with a blade. There is no-one else around and you are too far away to tackle or stop him. You do however have a rifle, and you take aim and shoot. Perhaps you only meant to stop him by wounding him, but either way, the man is killed instantly. The child is saved.

Questions: Did you do wrong when you killed him? Were you justified in killing him (be it intentionally, or unintentionally)?

I think this example highlights, not that it is ok to do a wrong thing sometimes to achieve a right, but rather that the rightness and wrongness of the consequences of an action, are at least as morally important as the rightness and wrongess of the act itself. And that both of these are in fact more morally important than intent.
I agree with pretty much everything in this post. The point I and several others have been trying to make is that torture has limited positive consquences because of the unreliable nature of information gathered therefrom. But of course, the point bacon ops is trying to make is (apparently -- correct me if I'm wrong) that torture works.

Naturally no point is going to be effectively made until someone pulls out some trustworthy data, but trustworthy data on the efficacy of information gained through tortue is going to be hard to find.

Also, bacon ops is a repetitive hick.