No no, Rhum Runner. It’s not that easy.
Sacrificing millions for the life of one is not the moral equivalent of refusing to kill one when the lives of millions are at stake. Not at all. I don’t need Mill’s philosophies to form my own ideas of morality.
Of course this exercise is ridiculous, but if this debate were in more realistic terms it wouldn’t be nearly as dramatic. That’s why we exaggerate.
Here’s realistic;
I’d have a hard time condoning the torture of one old fat guy to save the life of one child. Or many.
I might find it near impossible to “pull the trigger” on the same old fat guy to save the same one child.
Well, I disagree with you then. The end result is the same, and however honorable your motive, the million dead people are just as dead, and the one just as alive.
The difference is that everybody will die eventually anyway.
But nobody ever has to be tortured.
So yes, I would let the entire planet die rather than stabbing all the non vital parts of a child and then burying them alive.
ok, well let’s throw it back at you anti-torture people. What if all you had to do was spank the child one time. Would you do that? What if you had to hold its head under water for thirty seconds, would you do that? Or is your absolute position that causing any amount of physical pain to one person is such a horrible evil that you would rather the entire planet perish?
Fuck. Your. Planet.
There are innocent people all over the world, including the US, who die of need.
I live by myself in a two bedroom house and drive a new car. I throw away food, and I eat in restaurants. I have much more than I need, and I could, with some effort, give part (most) of it up and save some lives. I don’t.
Am I not that priviledged baby? I bet that I could save dozens of lives just by suffering a little, killing my lifestyle (the baby), let alone by dyeing.
Now cut that out. Rhum Runner’s on the verge of an epiphany, and you’re going to ruin it. 
You can say that you would torture a child, Rhum Runner, but I believe you have a failure of imagination. Unless you are some kind of sicko—and by the way, that’s exactly who,somehow, mysteriously, winds up with these jobs–I do not believe you would be able to do it at the moment of truth.
Like many adults, I have swatted a kid on the butt (at a certain age, you can’t reason with 'em, you have to make it clear that touching the stove burner hurts). But that is a sting that fades in 10 seconds. Real torture is something else; something that permanently traumatizes even fully-integrated adult personalities.
I will continue to insist that those who want to conduct these discussions face–in print, even if they don’t have to go to the clinics in foreign countries–the reality of torture. It is atrocious cruelty inflicted by persons who are not fully human, in my estimation. The cat that toys with a mouse, the lion that eats the wildebeest alive–they don’t have a conscience. But the torturers do have a conscience in the purest sense of the word–they KNOW, they are AWARE what they’re doing and even if they keep their faces wooden, they like inflicting pain. Talk to some torture survivors!!! Find out what the words you throw around so casually actually mean.
AuntPam I think you are the one who lacks imagination. I have never said that I would enjoy or want to torture a child. All I said was that, in the context of a hypothetical situation, were the alternatives ONLY to torture the child or to see millions of innocent people dead, I would choose to torture the child. You, apparently in whatever twisted process is running in your head, seem to think that it is better that the millions die. I do not see that as the moral highground, and frankly it strikes me as a silly and juvenile position by a person who is incapable of stepping outside of their little mind to appreciate the scope of the horror that your inaction would bring about. One million dead balanced against one person’s suffering and ruined life or death is not a difficult decison. (again, with the caveat that you are opperating in the hypothetical where there are NO alternatives) BTW, would you care to answer my question? Would you slap a child to save a million lives? What would you be willing to do? Nothing?
I doubt that anyone who is not a sadist could torture. If that person didn’t enjoy inflicting pain, he/she couldn’t possibly continue. I’ve heard a man scream (like a woman?) in pain and fear. Torture gets worse.
AuntPam is right. Most of you don’t know what you’re volunteering for.
“BTW, would you care to answer my question? Would you slap a child to save a million lives? What would you be willing to do? Nothing?”
Hah! That old trap?
Shame on you, Rhum Runner, for even trying it.
Rhum Runner
Are you a cop?
Its not a trap. Its an honest question. You have set a ceiling that you are not willing to pass, i.e. torture. Would you be willing to do less than troture? If so, how much less? If your answer is yes, are the differences between your position and mine only one of degree? Are you prepared to say that you would not inflict ANY pain whatsoever, no matter how temporary and minor on any child for the sake of a million lives? I’d like to hear your thoughts.
LOL, no, far from it. In fact, I am a law student, and quite the civil libertarian. What an odd question, what makes you think I am a cop? if I might ask.
Whaddya mean, it’s not a trap? You just sprung it, fer chrisakes. 
You said;
“If your answer is yes…”
Which is properly followed by;
How hard?
Where?
Would you slap two?
etc.
I don’t remember the name of the trap, but it is a trap, nonetheless.
BTW; you interview like a cop. Lawyers are very like cops. That’s why the two don’t often get along well.
Avoiding the question won’t make it go away. 
I’ll answer the question. No, I would not slap a child to save a million lives. There is nothing I would be willing to do to a child to save any number of lives. Is that unequivocal enough for you? You can make whatever sanctimonious moral judgements you want about that. I don’t care. To me it would not be a calculated moral decision. I simply would not be able to do it.
I disagree. Having seen interviews with former torturers in Algeria and South Africa, I have the impression that they rationalize it. Remember that the human mind is incredibly adaptable. Show a man a pink flying horse and seconds later he’ll either have forgotten about it, explained it away or incorporated it into his worldview. Torturers make themselves believe that it’s just a job, someone has to do it, the victim probably deserves it, etc etc. I believe most of them would shy away from violence and cruelty outside their “profession”.
Read Pratchett’s Small Gods for a similar view.
OK. But that’s not really what we’re talking about. You couldn’t torture a child, fine. You’re a good person. But you don’t have to plan a career as executioner in order to be in favor of the death penalty, you know. The question is whether you find it right or wrong, not whether you could do it yourself.
Rhum Runner:
First, I regret that you’ve descended to ad hominem attack here. Usually that indicates that one has no intellectual arguments to make. But I see that you want to keep the discussion hypothetical. The reason I keep urging you to think outside that box, is that these “hypothetical case” justifications are unfortunately used in real world situations over and over by actual torturers: “I had to torture the child in front of his father, because my commanding officer told me that the father knew where the bomb was.” Every year, thousands of persons around the world are tortured using justifications as weak or weaker than that. When you raise these hypotheticals, when you detach yourself by saying “but this is all just an intellectual exercise,” YOU are saying to them that “sometimes” it’s okay to torture people.
However, since you want to keep the discussion hypothetical, let’s try this hypothetical. First, recall the single most painful thing that has ever happened to you. Next, hypothetically, the person who knows where the nuclear superbomb is located is your father. Hypothetically, may we tie you to a table in front of your dad and inflict that same level of pain on you over and over and over until your father speaks? For the purposes of the hypothetical, let’s assume your dad is such a tough old bird that you don’t know if he will ever talk. So the torture is going to go on for a long time. Perhaps days. This is all hypothetical, of course.
If, as you say, it’s moral to torture one uninvolved person to save the lives of millions, then what’s the problem?