The second heading: Reasons of principle
Torture treats the victim as a means to an end and not an end in themselves
[First bullet] ● it treats the victim as a 'thing', not as a person with all the value that we associate with persons
[I omit the other bullets because I want to understand this sentence only from itself, alone]
I contended against the meaning of 'thing', but now the bold confuses me. Would someone please explain if the bolded depends on the virtues or vices of a victim? Suppose a depraved, heinous person is tortured (I'll abbreviate him as a malfeasant). Wouldn't torture correspond wih the negative values of this malfeasant, and thus this malfeasant him/herself? Is it possible that society may judge that a malfeasant not require 'care for the trauma inflicted' (last clause, para 4)? Then how does the bolded make sense?
I know no philosophy, so would someone please explain the meaning of the bolded, basically and simply. Also, please recognise that I'm only trying to understand the bolded. This post only hypothesises a situation and neither implies or reflects anything about me or my opinions on torture.