Me: Of course not.
Test: Would you torture someone to stop a nuke from exploding in a city?
Me: No.
Test: That's not necessarily inconsistent, but it is very strange. Are you sure you meant your first answer?
sigh This test was clearly written by a utilitarian who is not capable of seeing the world another way, who believes if you make the numbers big enough, deep down I must be a utilitarian too.
I am not a utilitarian.
I mean it!
I am not willing to do evil that good may result. I am not willing to do it if the good is small. I am not willing to do it if the good is big. I am not willing to do it!
I say "of course" torture is not always morally unacceptable because I can think of so many circumstances in which it's obviously acceptable. EMTs necessarily torture people all the time in the process of treating them. All the personal trainers I've had - at least the good ones - have tortured me, and frankly that's what I pay them for. Navy SEALs torture prospective members to find and create those who can handle the rigors of war. And on a very small scale, parents routinely and necessarily make their kids suffer in order to make them better people. While what parents do stretches the definition of the word, I am convinced God does things on a grand scale that easily qualify under a similar principle.
The crucial factor isn't net human happiness - I don't believe in sacrificing one person for another in a general context. It isn't even consent. It's love. I believe you can hurt someone, even profoundly, not always as a sufficient condition but as an often necessary one, if you believe it's best for them.
Utilitarians think morality lies in outcomes - the whats. But whatever I am is completely orthogonal - I believe it lies in the story surrounding the outcome, the hows and the whys.