There's a distinction between subjective rightness and objective rightness (these are poor terms given that they're both compatible with using moral realism). I'd say that if you torture someone thinking it will be bad but it turns out good, that was subjectively bad but objectively good. Given what you knew at the time you shouldn't have done it but it was ultimately for the bets.
You can read a brief summary of his findings here--he also read my article and didn't point out anything major, so it's unlikely that I majorly distorted what he said.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/BvNxD66sLeAT8u9Lv/climate-change-and-longtermism-new-book-length-report