You may be shocked when I tell you this, but the consensus among philosophers—based on my examination of the literature—is that torture is never morally permissible, but terrorism sometimes is. In other words, it’s always wrong, all things considered, to inflict great pain or suffering on a person, even a very bad one, even if it’s necessary to save many innocent lives; but it’s not always wrong, all things considered, to kill large numbers of innocent people. Can anyone explain this bizarre juxtaposition of judgments? How can the end sometimes, but not always, justify the means? I have an explanation, but I’ll await yours before disclosing it. Stay focused on the question. Rambling prose is indicative of sloppy thought.