Mr. Beast brings up the core of the original discussion.
It is a conflict between two essential elements of human ethics:
Consequentialism and Deontological ethics. Both these concepts have strengths and weaknesses and have been debated for many years by people way smarter than I am.
To drill down through the philosophical mumbo-jumbo, it boils down to this:
Do you believe the end justifies the means?
Consequentialists believe that if the end is "good" it can compensate if the means are "bad". Some Consequentialists forgo the evaluation whether something is "good enough" or "bad enough".
Deontologists believe that the means need to be evaluated morally/ethically independent of the anticipated ends. Deontologists believe that the argument "the ends justify the means" can only be evaluated post facto and in that case it is too late, the deed is done! The Argument of the Deontologist is that "will the uncertain anticipated end justify the certain means?".
For further information, consider researching "Principle of Permissible Harm"
http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=9763. It is complex and complicated concept.
No one can say whether Consequentialism and Deontological ethics are either correct or both incorrect. There is much academic debate on these concepts.
Emotional responses abound when Consequentialism and Deontological ethics are debated. Especially more when the concept of ethical torture come up.
This is one of the many reasons why this and other administrations (foreign and domestic) used to shy away from "torture is allowed" and instead redirect the debate to "This technique is not torture". This way a specific technique could be ethically justified because it was "not-torture".
One thing that is known is that Consequentialists and Deontologists will probably never agree nor convert the other. But each sure does like to try
