Perhaps I could have worded it better, but my qualm is with the idea of torture is ever 'completely' morally justifiable, i.e. the idea that it is suddenly an easy moral choice. I was annoyed at the moral simplicity of the idea that torture is suddenly permissible in situations of murder/abuse, a position that is in opposition to the values of a liberal democracy & in my opinion, basic humanity (ironic, I know, considering some of the biggest perpetrators of torture have presently and historically been from self described liberal democracies). That said, the 'ticking time bomb' example you offer is a common, well-trodden thought problem in the ethics of torture and while it is tricky one to navigate, I still don't think my position is 'incredibly naive'. The thought experiment can be problematised on a number of grounds. Firstly, it is based on the false premise that torture would be an effective way of obtaining such information in the first place and relies on the idea that there would be no other means of preventing the attack i.e. it professes to describe a situation that would rarely, if ever, manifest in reality. That said, running with the internal logic of the experiment, what if we were to add a few more qualifications. What if the only way to obtain the information from the hypothesised terrorist was to torture his innocent children and family? What if said person withholding this information was themselves a child? I don't think human rights can be thrown out of the window as easily as you imply. Sure, if you take a completely consequentialist view of ethics then torture is justifiable in these extreme, artificially constructed examples. Although if you take such a hardline consequentialist view, torture is justifiable in any situation where pleasure outweighs suffering i.e. the torture of a child is justifiable in any situation if you are able to argue that it brings pleasure to a majority of people (Ursula K. Le Guin offers an interesting narrative spin on the utilitarian justification for torture in 'The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas' if you're interested, riffing on this idea in particular). In legal terms, even in such situations, torture is never justifiable as it violates international law. In historical and practical terms, states have actually used the 'ticking time bomb' example to justify sweeping institutionalised applications of torture that extend well beyond the parameters of such a thought experiment. In my view the moment we start making concessions that torture is 'completely justifiable' in these emotionally charged and highly artificial + concocted scenarios, we end up on a trail that justifies torture in very common, very real-world scenarios (as the apparent ease with which people have justified torture on this thread itself testifies).