Is Torture Ever Permissible

There are many debates about whether torture is morally permissible.   Those that are against torture use utilitarianism because they support that it is moral to limit the amount of torture in the world, not just if it exists at all.   Torture has been abused though in so many ways, but that doesn’t say that it shouldn’t have a place in society.   If we can save the lives of many by torturing the life of one, then this would be a moral permissible act.
This paper will discuss both sides of the argument but most importantly defending that torturing a human being should be permissible because it is a given right to save someone’s life.
My thesis argument:
P1:   Torture is a means for preventing terrorism.
P2:   It is a given right to save the lives of others.
P3:   The lives and happiness of many outweigh the lives and happiness of the few.   If we can torture/kill the lives of the few, then we can save the lives of many.
Conclusion:   Torturing terrorists is permissible, if it can help save lives.
This argument is inductive, because it will never prove its theory.   I know that torturing a human being is illegal since President Obama came to office.   But with this argument I want to establish the probability of the conclusion.   The premises in my argument are intended to be really strong, so that it would be unlikely for the conclusion to be false.   Everyone has a right to save one’s own life.   If torturing one person would help save the lives of thousands of people, then it should be permissible.   I don’t think that the premise establishes the truth of the conclusion but they provide good reason that makes the conclusion true. (Hardy, J., Foster, C., & Zúñiga y Postigo, G. 2015).
The first premise in my argument, that torture is a means for preventing terrorism, is only true if torturing a human being can be found morally permissible.   I don’t see anything wrong with torturing a terrorist if the end will justify the mean.   Torture can be justified in the case...