I'm not going to come out one way or another with a declaration of exactly where the line should be drawn (keeping in mind that in my younger years, I didn't ev

I'm not going to come out one way or another with a declaration of exactly where the line should be drawn (keeping in mind that in my younger years, I didn't even agree with seatbelt mandates), but this sort of tradeoff occurs with any rules at all. They inevitably cause at least some harm, but if the good outweighs the harm by a large enough measure, we adopt the rule anyway. Having speed limits and traffic signals at all is an obvious example. Somebody somewhere has died at least once because they weren't in an ambulance and their driver couldn't get to the hospital fast enough. You're effectively making the Jack Bauer argument. What if a nuke is about to go off and you're absolutely certain the guy you have knows where it is and how you can stop it? Rather than blanket bans on torture, we should teach interrogators how to have good judgement. I suspect you would not accept the exact same argument in that case.