Thanks.
I also question the line that has been drawn between this hypothetical question and the deduction of the answer(er)s' moral stance on the issue. I find the question, including the expansions some posters have induced, to be a question of instinct...
Your family is in immediate danger, so would you torture?
When the responder thinks of this question they are imaging themselves in that situation, a situation of immediate action.. a question of instinct.
I do not believe morality to be from instinct. I think morality is of the rationality variety.
Agreed on the distinction between morality and instinct.
I disagree on the proposition that the question posed at the start of this thread to be a question of instinct. Indeed, the debate that has proceeded precludes it being simply a question of instinct.
Instinct, as you correctly observe, is intrinsically separated from rational thought--it is by definition irrational thought.
Is the debate we have been having here instinctive or rational? While a few responses have been of a knee-jerk/witticism variety, most of the respondents, including Ethereal in his original post, propose reasons for their choice. Your own posts, for example, as well as Captain Courtesy's, have tended towards seeking clarification of the scenario and the predicates to the choice being made--analytical comments that require the abstract reasoning even to articulate.
Additionally, I would argue that the scenario posed could not entertain instinctive response, simply because to engage in the action proposed--that of torture--is to cogitate, calculate, and rationally think about how best to inflict pain, cause distress, and generally inflict suffering. Torture may be good or evil, but it I do not see it as ever being instinctive.
No, this is not a question of instinct. It is a moral question, and a proper answer requires a measure of moral thought and reasoning, regardless of the answer at which one arrives. Those who answer in the affirmative generally speak from a morality that places the bonds of kinship and close communion above the bonds of mere humanity; my own morality emphatically makes this distinction. Those who have answered in the negative seem to be generally speaking from a morality that makes all bonds equal, and rejects the distinction between family member and perfect stranger. We may be articulating different moral perspectives and philosophies, but the responses I have read here are definitely articulating moral reasoning and rational thought.