t torture will result in the saving of innocent lives. These statements strongly suggest that Bagaric (2005, p. 4) finds torture to be an acceptable way of gaining information about potential attacks or the threat of such attacks.
Using the Aristotelian and contemporary concept of ethos, Pearson (2005, p. 20) sees the other argument as merely a "vulgar form of consequentialism, the philosophy that only consequences matter, especially in politics." This particular author refers to torture with such terms as "monstrous" and "arbitrary" and describes it as a "Kafka-esque nightmare" (Pearson, 2005, p. 21). The ethos being presented in this argument is firmly anti-torture and tends to affirm the contention that moral values and norms everywhere and always mitigate against the use of torture even when it is possible (though it is never sure) that this process will reveal information that prevents the loss of life or harm to the innocent.
The two approaches reveal that Bagaric (2005, p. 1) is a consequentialist and that as Cockcroft and Cockcroft (1992, p. 22) suggests, has a closed and firm stance on an issue, nevertheless calling for pragmatism and recognition that there are times when a morally challenging act may be necessary for the greater good. In contrast, Pearson (2005, p. 22) presents an ethos which suggests that there are never any circumstances under which significant value from torture will be generated to justify its use.
The second rhetorical proof consists of pathos understood as an emotional appeal containing "an implicit element of 'binary opposition,' such as love/hate: courage/fear:
...