Objection to Torture

I think these four articles adequately presented different sides to the argument of the morality of torture. However, I do take issue to what some of Bagaric says. While he, in both of his article recognizes that there is a potential slippery slope fallacy when dealing with the morality of torture I feel as if he does not attempt to draw a line to fix the problem, but rather just belittles the idea of the concern of the fallacy in general. This becomes especially evident as he says, “This is an intellectually defeatist argument,” and in his other article he responds by advocating that it is widely used already and that legalization would just be a better solution. This makes me uncomfortable because I do think it is a valid concern as to if some torture is permissible and beneficial, where one draw does said line and how does one prevent the torture from getting out of control. I think that he also commits an equivalence fallacy when he compares compassionate torture to organ donation in “Some Torture Needed as a Life-Saving Tool”, because while it might be my ignorance, I cannot honestly see the comparison. Organ donation is usually voluntary or the person deemed brain dead has once signed a consent form or others sign similar forms. There is no consent on behalf of the person being tortured, even if he or she may have acted in a way to deserve the torture. Bagaric clearly thinks in a Utilitarian manner of what would benefit the most people, and I think that I tend to disagree with much of Utilitarianism, so maybe it is a disagreement in our ethical foundation. I think that compassionate, well intended torture can be beneficial at times and perhaps even morally excusable but unlike Bagaric, I do not believe it to be morally permissible.