If torture cannot compel testimony, then what is the point of torture? With no answer to this question, all the questions you ask become irrelevant.

What “argument of expected value?

The two that you and I are making. You have to make one to have a utilitarian opinion on this issue. Understand yet?

That book contains no study of torture that demonstrates, or even claims to demonstrate, that, under a utilitarian analysis, the costs of torture outweigh the benefits[emphasis added]

“Rejali also tackles the controversial question of whether torture really works, answering the new apologists for torture point by point.”

It clearly claims to. Now read the book and explain to me what’s wrong with Rejali’s claim. Cite his points page by page and what’s wrong with them.

If torture cannot be limited in the way described whether it is lawful or not, how is that an argument for keeping it a crime in all cases?

Your misunderstanding would be clear to anyone who read the original link.

I know nobody said that.I’m pointing out to you that polling data suggests that most Americans reject your deontological rule against torture.

Which would only be relevant if you thoughtt I said a majority of Americans followed deontological ethics.

You are bad at explaining the relevance of your questions, and I tend to think that’s because they aren’t relevant.

Nonresponsive. You claimed “they lose the capacity to remain silent.” I ask again, how do you know this? Show us your evidence that torture victims lose the capacity to remain silent. If you have no evidence, I can only assume you are just making this claim up out of thin air. Same as with all your other empirical claims.

No, not “expected value”, but argument of expected value. I have an argument against it, you have presented no argument for it. Symmetry implies that I win.

Incomprehensible. What “argument of expected value?” If you think you have an argument demonstrating that the benefits of torture (in terms of “expected value,” or however else you want to express them) are outweighed by the costs of torture, then make that argument.

This book has some. Get back to me when you’ve gotten through it’s extensive footnotes.

That book contains no study of torture that demonstrates, or even claims to demonstrate, that, under a utilitarian analysis, the costs of torture outweigh the benefits. If you think there is such a study, identify it. State the title of the study and name its authors.

Your misunderstanding would be clear to anyone who read the original link.

Another nonsequitur. If torture cannot be limited in the way described whether it is lawful or not, how is that an argument for keeping it a crime in all cases? Answer the question.

Nobody said that a majority of Americans followed deontological ethics,

I know nobody said that. I’m pointing out to you that polling data suggests that most Americans reject your deontological rule against torture. As do most academic moral philosophers. Only anti-torture absolutists claim that the use of torture is never justified. You’re a member of a small minority of anti-torture fundamentalists.

My point is that whatever premises you start with, utilitarian or deontological, the argument against torture is sound.

Simply chanting this assertion over and over again won’t make it any less false.

If torture cannot compel testimony, then what is the point of torture?

” Expected value” is the benefit I am referring to.

No, not “expected value”, but argument of expected value. I have an argument against it, you have presented no argument for it. Symmetry implies that I win.

You have no such study, do you?

This book has some. Get back to me when you’ve gotten through it’s extensive footnotes.

If torture cannot be limited in the way described whether it is lawful or not, how is that an argument for keeping it a crime in all cases?

Your misunderstanding would be clear to anyone who read the original link.

In fact, polling data suggests that a large majority of Americans reject your rule.

Nobody said that a majority of Americans followed deontological ethics, so how could they be convinced by a deontological argument? My point is that whatever premises you start with, utilitarian or deontological, the argument against torture is sound.

Perhaps your difficult is that you can’t see past premises, and fail to realize that it’s possible to argue from more than one set.

How do you know? Show us your evidence that torture victims lose the capacity to remain silent. Even if your claim is true, it doesn’t answer my question. If a torture victim retains the capacity to lie, the torturer cannot be in control of his mind.

Not merely symmetry between costs and benefits, but symmetry between arguments of expected value.

“Expected value” is the benefit I am referring to. Again, to make a serious case for your utilitarian claim against torture you would need to produce a comprehensive study of torture that demonstrates that, under a utilitarian analysis, the costs outweigh the benefits. You have no such study, do you? Your claim that the costs are greater than the benefits is pure speculation on your part. Wishful thinking.

I claim it can’t be met.

Then the argument is nonsensical. If torture cannot be limited in the way described whether it is lawful or not, how is that an argument for keeping it a crime in all cases?

I’ve been sticking to the deontological case here because I’m confident of my case

Your deontological “case” is simply a rule. Why should anyone else accept that rule? Why should anyone else believe that torture is always and everywhere wrong? In fact, polling data suggests that a large majority of Americans reject your rule. Pew has been polling Americans on the ethics of torture since 2004, and has consistently found that only about one-third of respondents believe torture is never justified. Support for your rule seems to be even weaker among academic philosophers.

Because they lose the capacity to remain silent.

Yes, I know that. That’s why I said that to make a serious case for your utilitarian claim against torture you would need to produce a comprehensive study of torture that demonstrates that, under a utilitarian analysis, the costs outweigh the benefits.

No, you don’t understand. Not merely symmetry between costs and benefits, but symmetry between arguments of expected value. You insist on certainty from me but present absolutely no evidence from your own side.

You should probably consider this, though.

And if you think those “institutions and social practises” do not meet the requirement, just how exactly do you propose to meet it?

I claim it can’t be met. You’ve provided no evidence otherwise.

You also need to make up your mind whether you’re a utilitarian or a deontologist.

Ethical intutions are a product of evolution and therefore deontological and utilitarian convergence is the norm. Ticking bombs and trolley cars are only interesting because they’re exceptions that seem to violate said norm.

I’ve been sticking to the deontological case here because I’m confident of my case and I give you links to others making utilitarian cases because I’m confident they make their cases. I’m fully confident in both sides, and I think anyone reading our exchange (pity upon them) would find little here to indicate my confidence is misplaced.

The second quote you make from me answers all relevant questions.

No it doesn’t. It doesn’t answer any of them. How can torture be “mind control” if the victim retains the capacity to lie?

Utilitarianism is symmetric–you merely need to provide a better case than the other side.

Yes, I know that. That’s why I said that to make a serious case for your utilitarian claim against torture you would need to produce a comprehensive study of torture that demonstrates that, under a utilitarian analysis, the costs outweigh the benefits. You don’t have any such study, do you? You’re substituting wishful thinking for scientific analysis.

“Accomodates the use of torture” wasn’t the requirement. “Limit torture to these very rare circumstances while still producing enough benefits to justify its use.”

You claimed that “the actual world has not seen” an “institution” that meets that requirement. I gave you some examples of “institutions and social practises” in the “actual world” that accommodate the use of torture. Show us how you have determined that these institutions do not meet the requirement you state.

And if you think those “institutions and social practises” do not meet the requirement, just how exactly do you propose to meet it? Eliminate prosecutorial discretion? Eliminate the necessity defense? Eliminate jury nullification? Eliminate presidential pardons? Laws are only as good as the willingness of the government and the people to enforce them. As Obama’s refusal to prosecute Bush Administration torturers demonstrates, we don’t need to write explicit permission to torture into any of our laws in order for our interrogators to use torture and get away with it. Even a Democratic president is willing to give the torturers immunity for their “crimes.”

“Accomodates the use of torture” wasn’t the requirement. “Limit torture to these very rare circumstances while still producing enough benefits to justify its use.” Obama forgiving torture in order to “move forward” while denying that it should have been used in the first place is not an example of this.