I'd feel better about the Stanford example you cited if the cops' use of torture had been disclosed - that is, if they had been held accountable for using illeg

I'd feel better about the Stanford example you cited if the cops' use of torture had been disclosed - that is, if they had been held accountable for using illegal methods. The law recognizes extenuating circumstances such as those in the example, and provides reasonable outcomes - the DA/Grand Jury could have declined to charge, a jury could have declined to convict, a judge could have vacated a jury's conviction, and/or the governor could have pardoned them if they were sentenced. Under the circumstances, I think the cops would not have been punished. I'd endorse that outcome, given the facts. But instead, the cops committed crimes and covered them up. That's bad for us, because it reduces transparency of state conduct. Basically, it's bad for our society if its police use illegal force without accountability. If the right thing, the moral thing to do in a particular situation involves breaking a law, well ok, but we all (through the law) should know about it and we should all (through the law) hold accountable those who acted illegally. That doesn't mean they'll be punished - but IMO moral conduct must include accountability. I think a better view of these types of situations is to affirm that torture is never legal, nor is it moral - but it might on rare occasion be an effective tactic to achieve a better outcome. But accountability has to be part of the picture. I think if we had held that as our standard of conduct following 9/11, we would not have Guantanamo as a national shame today. The law can help when morality drifts due to fear and panic.