tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7360775794758062110.post6064835385079066183..comments2009-05-26T21:45:04.157-04:00lbenoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7360775794758062110.post-27113723219673796862009-05-25T23:20:18.030-04:002009-05-25T23:20:18.030-04:00Philosophically, the question really pits two rival schools of moral reasoning against each other: consequentialism and deontology. Are some actions inherently wrong regardless of the consequences (Kant says yes), or is the morality of an action to be assessed in terms of its consequences (J. Bentham, J.S. Mill)? Consequentialist reasoning is used to justify all sorts of intrinsically vicious actions, especially in war.Fr. John D. Alexander, SSChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142954407555353293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7360775794758062110.post-66463943566538176042009-05-24T12:53:51.337-04:002009-05-24T12:53:51.337-04:00It appears that you are off the hook. Torture did not provide good intelligence. But the point is made. Even if it did, it would still be torture and repulsive to our national and religious ideals.<br />CPCountry Parsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02727241474360657192noreply@blogger.com