John Stuart Mill: The Ethics Of Torture

Mill would say that torture is acceptable if it increases the happiness of a greater amount of people than if the torture were not carried out. For example, if one prisoner had information that could free 1000 people from certain death and if by obtaining this information it would be highly probable that you could save these people's lives then I think he would say that torturing the prisoner is justified.

I don't think Kant's morality has to do with intentions like kindness per se, but more to do with the second formulation of the categorical imperative: that is "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end." So torturing a person for some information or for some other means would not be permitted. But I don't think this has to do with kindness, but more to do with duty. It is our duty not to treat persons as ends.
Therefore, consequences are irrelevant if the torture is based on the moral duty and therefore torture would be ethical. The universal moral law only acts on your will if there is a moral consequence based on duty. If you can’t rationalize the ends to justify the means, then it’s wrong. Respect their autonomy. I base this on the information in the article and podcast that are part of the project resource. There is no moral principle in his way of thinking and states, emotions that are irrational. He doesn’t approve of emotions in correlation to human reactions. Emotions can cloud the