[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
What philosophical structure leads you to conclude "torture is bad"? This isn't a gotcha question

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if it's a gotcha question or not, but sure sounds like a thinly veiled AC hijack.

To answer your question, I think some normative formation of a Kantian categorical imperative would obligate us not to torture -- something along the lines of "Don't torture people" fits all three formulations well.

[ QUOTE ]
since I assume you don't endorse the concept of natural rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what makes you think that; I think I've made it clear here in this thread that even if experts in jurisprudence agree torture isn't prohibited by the law, it shouldn't be considered a legitimate interrogation tactic; this isn't to say I've explicitly endorsed natural right theories, either, but I'm not sure what I've said in this thread that would make you think I've rejected them.

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't torture like water-boarding fit neatly in the framework of individuals relinquishing personal liberty for the collective good? Or do you rather reject "natural rights" only for property? Or is it ad-hoc?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. This is question begging: it implies torture will produce results that contributes to "a collective good" while simultaneously assuming social contract theorists (or whoever you're referring to that adheres to 'the framework of individuals relinquishing personal liberty for the collective good') are necessarily consequentialists whose concern is with "the collective good".

But again, this is thinly veiled ACist hijacking, IMO. You've managed to word it more articulately and only dance around it via subtle questions, but it's essentially the "lolz but you want to steal all my moniez with your jackbooted thuggery, why don't you approve of torture too" argument. You should take it to another thread, IMO.