More handpicked essays just for you.
The case for torture michael levin review
The case for torture michael levin review
The case for torture michael levin review
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Levin’s hypothetical leads to the illogical “A Case For Torture” is an essay written by Michael Levin in which he tries to make a compelling case for the use of torture as a punishment during specific situations in the United States. One of the ways Levin tries to logically prove his argument is by citing different real life circumstances; most are hypothetical situations. His use of theoretical instances is meant to help direct the reader to understand the applications of Levin’s policy on torture. But unfortunately, the examples Levin cites are too weak for his argument. These examples include a potential terrorist attack on Manhattan and a hospital robbery. Levin’s position also lacks strength due to its inapplicability to the current world. …show more content…
After the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, terrorism has come to the forefront of the American picture. Levin published his essay in 1982, at a time when terrorism was something that was feared, but not at the intense level that it is currently. One of the main reasons Levin advocates for torture is that thinks that it will help, “...for preventing future evils” (689). Before terrorism was rampant in the world, this idea may have held some merit. If, after smaller attacks, terrorists were tortured, they may have given away information that would have been viable for preventing future, more detrimental attacks. Nowadays torturing a terrorist may have more consequences than benefits. Attacks nowadays are set up by large, intricate, dangerous groups of terrorists. So, if a member of one of these terrorist groups was tortured, that may make the groups want to retaliate even more strongly. Essentially, torturing a terrorist may perpetuate more hatred for the target country. Another point Levin makes is that, “The name of their [the terrorists] game is public recognition” (690). He explains how one of the main motives behind terrorism is being as infamous as possible by, for example, being on every news broadcast or newspaper. The idea of public recognition being a motivation for terrorism is something that did make sense in 1982, but in today’s technologically advance world, this feat is less than a goal and almost a guarantee. With the rise of social media, getting publicly recognized is not something very difficult to do. News spreads like wildfire; so if a terrorist has plans to do anything remotely damaging, and is able to carry it out, it will most likely garner some media attention. Although some of Levin’s points had credibility during the time when his essay was published, they are not contemporary enough to be applicable to
Michael Levin’s essay “The Case for Torture” is trying to express many things but one of the most important is to show that sometimes torture is necessary. During the story, Levin resorts to lots of arguments, with the speculation that torture is only reasonable when saving lives, he demonstrates three situations in which torture may be okay. The author is basically saying that he agrees with torture if it means saving innocent lives. But we can’t always be too sure about that. Levin’s argument states many of theoretical cases like an atomic bomb, a terrorist on a plane and a newborn baby being kidnapped. He gives three scenarios for the reader to think about.
Alan Dershowitz challenges the legitimization of non-lethal torture in his essay, “Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist be tortured?” He claims that torture should indeed be legitimized for specific scenarios that require such action. The ticking bomb terrorist gives the example of a terrorist withholding time-sensitive information that could result in the death of innocent citizens, if not shared. Not only does Dershowitz challenge the idea of torture, but he also gives a probable solution that favors the legitimization the torture. He mentions three values that would have to be complied with by all three branches of government if it were to be legitimated, which Dershowitz does endorse. The arguments of the two perspectives discussed in the
In today’s society the word “terrorism” has gone global. We see this term on television, in magazines and even from other people speaking of it. In their essay “Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11”, published in 2002, Clark R. Chapman and Alan W. Harris argue that the reaction of the American officials, people and the media after the attacks of 9/11 was completely irrational due to the simple fact of fear. Chapman and Harris jump right into dismembering the irrational argument, often experienced with relationships and our personal analysis. They express how this argument came about from the terrorist being able to succeed in “achieving one major goal, which was spreading fear” among the American people (Chapman & Harris, para.1). The supporters of the irrational reaction argument state that because “Americans unwittingly cooperated with the terrorist in achieving the major goal”, the result was a widespread of disrupted lives of the Americans and if this reaction had been more rational then there would have been “less disruption in the lives of our citizens” (Chapman & Harris, para. 1).
The Line Between Right and Wrong Draws Thin; Torture in Modern America and how it is reflected in The Crucible
Levin wants to change the negative views that society placed on torture so that, under extreme circumstances torture would be acceptable. He begins his essay with a brief description of why society views the topic of torture as a negative thing. He disagrees with those views, and presents three different cases in which he thinks torture must be carried out with provides few reasons to support his claim. He uses hypothetical cases that are very extreme to situations that we experience in our daily lives. From the start, Levin makes it perfectly clear to the reader that he accepts torture as a punishment. He tries to distinguish the difference between terrorists, and victims in order stop the talk of terrorist “right,” (648). Levin also explains that terrorists commit their crimes for publicity, and for that reason they should be identified and be tortured. He ends his essay by saying that torture is not threat to Western democracy but rather the opposite (Levin
In “The Case For Torture” an article written by Michael Levin, he attempts to justify the use of torture as a means of saving lives. Throughout the article, Levin gives the reader many hypothetical examples in which he believes torture is the only method of resolution. Though I agree with Levin, to some degree, his essay relies heavily on the fears of people and exploits them to convince people to think pain is the only way. In certain aspects, I could agree entirely with Levin, but when one reads deeper into the article, many fallacies become apparent. These fallacies detract from the article's academic standing and arguably renders the entire case futile.
Torture is something that can cause severe emotional and physical damage along with being a method to compel someone to reveal “valuable” information (“Definition of torture,” n.d.). When a person is being tortured they could also be compel to participate in an activity they don’t want to do (“Definition of torture,” n.d.). Since ancient times torture has been a method used to obtain valuable intelligence. Presently, the use of torture to acquire beneficial facts is a highly controversial topic. Torture is a highly controversial topic because no one knows how effective it is at retrieving information plus it violates human rights and dignity (“Why is Torture Wrong?” 2014).
Torture is the act of inflicting severe pain or suffering, mental or physical, on an individual to obtain information, to intimidate or for punishment. Torture is expressed in many ways, for example, rape, hard labour, electric shock, severe beatings, etc, and for this reason it is considered as cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. Therefore, it is a violation of human rights and is strictly prohibited by international law. Michael Davis and many other individuals have stated that torture is worse than murder. He claims, “Both torture and premature death are very great evils but, if one is a greater evil than the other, it is certainly torture”. With that being said, there are three major reasons to discuss, in which, torture is not morally acceptable. However, in many cases it is considered very beneficial, but the disadvantages outweighs the benefits. Firstly, bullying is a form of torture but to a lesser extent, in which it results in an individual suffering from low self-esteem, suicidal thoughts, self-harm, etc. In addition, torture is mainly used as a means to obtain information, however, it is an ineffective interrogation tool in which, the data given could be falsified. Lastly, torture is sometimes utilized to shatter the autonomy of individual, that is, the right to their freedom and independence, forcing the victim to succumb to the torturer’s way of thinking.
Torture, the most extreme form of human violence, resulting in both physical and psychological consequences. A technique of interrogation that has been proven time and time again to not only be ineffective but also a waste of time. Studies have shown that not only does torture psychologically damage the mind of the victim, but also can hurt the inflictor. If there is proof that torture is useless, why do we still use it? Torture should not be used to get information out of prisoners because of the risk of false information, enemy resistance and utter uselessness.
Until there is a credible way to determine whether or not torture is in fact effective, I pass judgment that the practice should be discontinued. The question as to if the torture policy is a human rights violation or if it holds crucial necessity, is not answered in the essay. Applebaum explores the reality that torture possesses negative implications on the inflictor. After presented with the compelling stance and evidence, Applebaum raises the interesting question as to why so much of society believes that torture is successful. I agree that the torture policy is wrong, a point emphasized by Applebaum, contrary to the popular attitude surrounding the topic.
Rothe, D. & Muzzatti, S.L. 2004. Enemies everywhere: Terrorism, moral panic and US civil society. Critical Criminology. 1(12): 327–350.
The use of torture has always been a hot topic of moral and ethical discussion. Typically, the discussion is not about whether or not torture is good, but rather if there is ever a morally acceptable situation in which torture should be allowed to occur. Does a criminal’s deeds strip him of basic human rights and make it morally okay for him to be physically and mentally abused? Do certain situations such as war make torture acceptable? It is generally agreed upon that torture is a terrible violation of a person and their rights; the common thread among moral questions such as these is if there are any times when torture could be considered morally acceptable. In order to analyze this moral dilemma, an ethical system is commonly used as a
Around the world and around the clock, human rights violations seem to never cease. In particular, torture violations are still rampant all over the world. One regime, the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, establishes a strong elaboration of norms against torture. Despite its efforts, many countries still outright reject its policies against torture while other countries openly accept them, but surreptitiously still violate them. The US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia all have failed to end torture despite accepting the provisions of the Convention.
Imagine awaking in the morning, going downstairs and preparing the morning meal. While enjoying the sunshine through the kitchen window along with a chai tea latte, the news on the television suddenly changes from the mundane to chaotic confusion. Disaster has struck! The implausible has just happened and the nation is in chaos. This disaster could happen at any moment and at any point across the globe. If the only method of prevention to this traumatic event is by the skilled technique of information extraction known as torture, would it not be the government’s obligation to the people to ensure this method of prevention was exercised? When considering the threat from extremists, the United States government must allow for the use of unorthodox interrogation methods, such as torture, when lives are on the line and time is of the essence.
Torture is the process of inflicting pain upon other people in order to force them to say something against their own will. The word “torture” comes from the Latin word “torquere,” which means to twist. Torture can not only be psychologically but mentally painful. Before the Enlightenment, it was perfectly legal to torture individuals but nowadays, it is illegal to torture anyone under any circumstances. In this essay, I will demonstrate why torture should never acceptable, not matter the condition.