Quote:However, we the readers can provide our own definitions of torture, and reason appropriately, provided we are given enough information.
Custos Sophiae, I think you missed a bit of my point... They never defined torture in 'Far Beyond Normal'... so When you say:
Torture is wrong, but sometimes there are no good choices left.
We can't actually say that about the story in question. This is, because "torture" in this case is a Gloobleflarg. It is NEVER actually defined in the story, when they are arguing over it (my main problem with it)... so 'torture' cant actually be declared wrong... because it is never defined.
The problem is that the author, and Buffy, may be using an absurdly broad definition of torture and expecting it to carry all the moral weight of the normal, narrow, definition (may because, as you say, the author never actually states their terms, which they should have.)
If we knew what the so-called torture entailed we could judge for ourselves if it was acceptable, given the circumstances, but for SG1 the author has hidden that information from us, which makes it very likely they are using false analogies to make a political point.
What the NID did to Buffy was torture, and unacceptable. Buffy dangling a cross in a vampire's mouth was torture, and acceptable under the circumstances. In both cases we can make that decision for ourselves, based on the evidence, without needing the author to define torture for us.
With SG1, the author has denied us the information needed to make that decision so they can be forced to accept Buffy's moral superiority, and the author can expound politics, which is not good writing.