Or, rephrasing the OP, “would you go to incredible lengths to torture someone in this life, in order to prevent their suffering even greater tortures for all eternity?”
Same question, same answer.
Apos, I am referring to this article.
Would you support torture if it could avoid the utter destruction of the universe, the end of time, and the complete humiliation of God, himself?
Just thought I would add another layer of idiocy to this debate! 
Personally I thought McDuff was the winner, followed closely by Tracer and Bryan Ekers.
Still, it’s your thread.
Funny, you never answered mine - which was both completely clear (and far more likely).
It sounds like you equate all this to maths questions like ‘how many people do you need in a room to have a 50% chance that two of them share a birthday?’
Here’s another one for you:
You torture loads of people and find Osama Bin Laden’s current location.
-
He’s alone but has masses of guards nearby. Do you bomb him?
-
He’s in a car with bodyguards. Do you bomb the car?
-
He’s in an apartment building with dozens of innnocent citizens. Do you bomb the building?
-
He’s in a city with millions of innnocent citizens. Do you bomb the city?
-
He’s in a country. Do you bomb it?
And (in all cases) do you think this will eliminate terrorism for ever?
Except of course here:
“My answer? Hell yes! There are few things I would not do to save life on this beautiful earth.”
This sentence appears to contain a contradiction (which I believe infests the thread).
Do you mean that people who kill are not ‘human’?
Otherwise how come human life is so ‘precious’ to you that you will kill people? 
We’ve only got one shot! Polarize the hull plating, charge phasers, reroute the power from the starboard nacelle to holodeck 3, and DO AN IRISH JIG WHILE THROWING LUCKY CHARMS INTO THE AIR! This will summon Superman who will drag us around the sun at 9000 times THE SPEED OF FARTS and we can retrieve some humpbacks (people, not not whales) to talk with the aliens.
(partially derived from a post somewhere vaugely out there…)
I find this question amusing. Even if you make the horribly unlikely and impractical premise that you know with absolute certainty this particular torture will save the planet and its inhabitants, you do not state you know HOW it will save them. If I know this information, will I have to destroy the entire alien civilization? Is this necessarily a better outcome than the destruction of Planet Earth?
One interesting aspect is that since there are indeed aliens, this probably presupposes the reality of interstellar travel [unless the aliens are somehow local and currently undiscovered]. If this is the case, one must consider the galactic (and possibly universal) consequences of humanity’s existance. Can we guarantee it would not be better for Earth to be destroyed? Does the human race go on to conquer even more less advanced civilizations in wars of genocide as it has even among its own people? And, interestingly enough, if a one of those civilizations were to capture, say, Cecil Adams, who didn’t personally want them killed, but knew that the only way they could be saved was through the destruction of his own race and thus refused to betray them, would we consider it ethical for Cecil Adams to be tortured?
So the alternative hypothetical presents itself… If humanity will end up destroying all life in the universe, even if all life will end eventually due to universal heat death, which is worth saving? How much do you love this world?
The simple consequences are only one part of the ethical picture, and therefore I cannot provide an answer to the OP. I must honestly say I don’t know what I would do.
And, with all due respect, you should realize why people think this is a ridiculous suggestion. You are taking a very real philosophical debate (ends vs. means, how much evil is ethical/legitimate/excusable in accomplishing a good) and putting it in virtually impossible terms. You may find it a useful thought experiment, and it some sense it might be, but IMHO it is not a particularly useful one in dealing with humanity’s current condition because of the exaggerated scale.
My problems with your scenario, Zenster, is that it removes most of the variables that inform the real-world debate over torture.
You don’t say so, but it appears that the subject of torture is one of the aliens. So, in your scenario:
You are 100% certain you are torturing a party who will otherwise kill billions.
You are 100% certain torture will truthfully deliver the pursued information.
You are 100% certain the truth you are after will prevent the death of billions.
Given these three conditions, I don’t think it is even necessary to stipulate the fact that the torture will be a historically singular event.
Given these conditions, it is no different than asking the question:
“Should you shoot a person who is about to shoot an innocent other?”
Save for complete pacifists or anarchists, the answer is clear and without significant debate.
However, in the real world, none of those things mentioned above can ever be 100% certain.
Another comparison:
Scenario 1: You are on a tall bridge, and you have been been attached to a bungee cord that has been thoroughly examined by the best professionals. You have watched other jump with the same cord and see that it is short enough. Do you jump?
Scenario 2: You are on a tall bridge, blindfolded. You feel someone touching you around the ankles. They tell you they’ve attached a bungee cord, and that they’re pretty sure they know what they are doing. Do you jump?
I would say that Scenario 1 is pretty close to what you propose and Scenario 2 is pretty close to reality for the torture debate.
You didn’t state who was being tortured and I assumed that it was one of the aliens. If it is a fellow human being with critical information, then it is an even clearer case. Either they are a willing party to the alien’s plan, and we can analyze as above, or they are unwilling and torture (however agonizing) will with 100% certainty prevent their death (and the deaths of billions).
welcome back obfus!
Zenster, have you not learned that you cant put out a question like that and not expect a smartass answer back? Your premise is ridiculous, completely open for urine extraction, and yet you chose to get pompous over some very funny replies?
Chill.
no, I would not.
2 wrongs don’t make a right.
Imagine a world with no hypotheticals.
Would it keep you out of Great Debates?
Yes or no!! You have to answer yes or no!!
Regards,
Shodan
I still think Mr2001 has come up with the best solution.
Answer the question! Don’t wait for the translation, answer the question!