I'd rather have an america where some people die of terrorism, than one that I feel ashamed of.

To hell with the argument that we need to become evil in order to avert evil.

The argument used matters to me, because if tomorrow it's proven that torture works, I still believe that civilized nations should be against it. If we hinge the argument on its utility, then when we lose that premise we lose the argument.

So, from a utility standpoint, it's far more likely to be useful for the Mob than any government.

Even within the utilitarian framework (where "the ends might justify the means"), which you seem to be representing, you have to consider all of the "ends". Protecting innocent lives is only one of the considerations.

Of course I put protecting innocent life near the top of the priority list. But that doesn't mean I think it's right (or ever justifiable) to kill the families of suspected terrorists. That doesn't mean I think that Americans should give up the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 15th amendments of their Constitution (all of which could be claimed as barriers to "protecting innocent life.").

If you don't think "feeling better about yourself" is an accurate summary of the principle that you are placing above protection of innocent life in this hypothetical torture scenario, please word it in a way that you find preferable. Or was that what you were doing when you listed a number of American constitutional amendments?

So- you get that my definition of evil places actions on the same level as results- and I get that yours doesn't. I'm not sure that we can do anything but agree to disagree.

IIRC, a German police chief tried to torture a kidnapper to reveal the whereabouts of a child whose life was under threat. The police chief was charged even though the child's life was saved (I may have got the details skewed but I believe the key points are true).