ABSTRACT
The author argues, that our politicians to have a deep respect for morality, but we do not want them so morally precious that they refuse to violate moral prohibitions in the face of catastrophic consequences. In this chapter, we will see that, when we find a more appropriate way to account for well-being, we can also find a way to say that bright-line prohibitions on torture, if not morally required, are morally superior. If our aim to become a torture-free society is important enough, it will trump all competing aims, and we can unambiguously say that an outright prohibition on torture is morally justifiable even required no matter the risk to our security. The state that uses torture in dark times, to salvage what projects it can, is not necessarily wicked, for we might conclude that its use of torture was morally acceptable given the implications for other important projects we have.
