They present an idea that directly states that torture is inhumane and not moral, but indirectly because it is illegal. When asked about the difference between illegal torture and illegal espionage, they were clear in stating that civilized people do not torture. When it comes to snooping, there is legal snooping, which means you can have reasonable snooping. Torture is illegal and is never acceptable under any circumstances. Does this mean that if torture was legal, it would be okay? Would they make a reasonable torture argument? They believe that honoring yourself and your dignity can be done while maintaining someone else's. Given a time bomb example, they would rather allow the loss of life of men, women and children due to a terrorist bomb than perform water boarding and they chose the loss of life. The reason because it would dishonor me, you the person inflicting the torture. In today's world we are no more safe than we were ten years ago and I suspect that this will not change in the next ten years. Kant would say that if it is wrong, don't do it. Mill would say that if there is a greater good, it must be done. Charles and Gregory follow an ethic of duty, supported by Immanuel