Brian Leiter, rightfully, condemns torture, eschewing utilitarian justifications for it, e.g., the ticking bomb scenario. That is, even if torturing X may lead to the saving of many lives, torturing X is not justified and ought not to be performed by any moral agent. Suppose our government tortures X, an Al-Qaeda operative who has participated in many murders prior to his capture. Our government's torturing, not surprisingly, results in important intelligence that leads to the government thwarting a terrorist plot that would have resulted in the horrific deaths of an estimated 2,000 U.S. citizens, including hundreds of elementary school children. Suppose that Leiter condemns the torturing as unjustified and a grievous wrong, but at the same time condemns X as an immoral person responsible for the deaths of many innocent human persons.
Would, at this point, Jeremy Shipley, who recently accused Ed Feser of insincerity, suggest that Leiter is "insincere," or would he do the intellectually decent thing and examine the moral philosophy that informs Leiter's judgments on such matters. And if he did, he would see that Leiter's judgment is perfectly consistent, and hardly the consequence of a character defect called "insincerity." And would real-world Leiter (or "Leiter Prime," LP) say of Imaginary-world Leiter (or IL), that IL is an "apologist for torture"? Would not we think that LP does not truly grasp IL's point of view, or would we say that IL is "insincere." You be the judge.