Michael Levin’s The Case for Torture was a very strong and well-organized essay. Levin supports very good arguments about where torture can be validated in real life situations and can help save innocent lives. His use of emotional and logical appeals flow throughout his entire essay paired with the real life situations mentioned before. My goal is to analyze The Case for Torture and to highlight key points, positive and negative, in Michael Levin’s essay. Levin uses emotional appeal more than he uses any other type of appeal. He provided three real life scenarios and supports why he thinks torture would help gain information and save innocent lives. Levin then supports his arguments for torture saying “…millions of lives surely outweigh constitutionality”. …show more content…
Levin used a red herring and a slippery slope logical fallacy in his essay. The red herring instance was a weaker example of comparing “terrorisms” and if it had been left out, it would have strengthened the essay tremendously. The slippery slope fallacy inferred that if terrorists were not tortured, they would not get answers from them, and their evil deed would continue. While reading his essay preparing for this analysis, I feel as if Michael Levin makes the indirect assumption that everyone is against torture. I also feel as if Levin thinks everyone needs an emotional or personal connection to make torture an okay concept in their mind. He does not acknowledge the fact that some people may not need convincing and have the same thoughts as he does.
While writing about torture most of Levin’s scenarios included torturing terrorists for answers or instruction to disarm bombs to save lives. By doing just that Michael Levin directed his essay toward the citizens of the United States of America. His essay could catch the eye of almost any American citizen and could possibly sway their opinions if torture is the only way to protect American soil. Michael Levin indirectly plays on patriotism and the love of our free country by making American citizens the audience for his
Some believe that even in the most dire of situations, the act of torturing a prisoner to obtain information is not the most effective or efficient way to glean accurate information about a threat or terrorist group; experts have said that it is actually a very inefficient way to go about this and even that it is only on rare occasions that this results in useful, accurate information. However, there are also those who believe the exact opposite; that the only way to get information from a terrorist, or someone believed to be involved in terrorist activity, is to mentally break them down until they have suffered enough to surrender any information they might know or to the point where they just say whatever is necessary for the “interrogation” to stop, as in 1984.
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.
Many people believe they could never commit the crime of torture; yet, Milgram, along with many others, have discovered that the converse is true. At the beginning of his piloted experiment, Milgram predicted virtually all the participants would refuse to continue. He was proven wrong when twenty-five out of forty participants continued past the point of 150 volts (80). He surmised, as the experiment progressed from the piloted study to the regular series, the total out come of average persons response was the same as they had observed in the prior study--solidifying the thought even your "average Joe" is capable of torture (81). While Milgram supports this legitimate thought with facts, stories, and examples, news and world reporter Szegedy-Maszak simply states "...Everyman is a potential torturer"(76). In correspondence with both Milgram and
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
When Hitler and the Nazi Party first entered power, they proposed strict and unimaginably radical policies. Their goal as the dominant political power was to create a “pure” German society. The idea of a “pure” German society stemmed from the idea that certain racial groups and ethnicities were undesirable and inferior. With that in mind, they sought to completely eliminate, through annihilation tactics, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, biracial children, handicapped citizens, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and any other individual(s) who opposed their radical ideologies. However, the most questionable part of these tactics was how and why the Nazis chose them. Of the many ways dictators and corrupt governments had tortured their citizens in the past, why was Hitler determined that the Einsatzgruppen, ghettos, and concentration camps were going to be the methods of choice to mass murder the Jewish people. Robert Payne notes in his book The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler that Hitler was not satisfied with a gruesome murder of the Jewish race. He preferred them to die in agony and complete humiliation. Methods of mass murder such as killing squads (the Einsatzgruppen), ghettos, and concentration camps proved themselves as the perfect final solution. These tactics would exterminate Jews at an increasing rate while removing them of their respectable status.
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
Dershowitz, Alan. “ The Case for Torture Warrants.” The Student Writer, Barbara Clouse, McGraw Hill,2008, pp. 469-471. In the article by Alan Dershowitz “ The Case for Torture Warrants,”
In dystopian literature there are many forms of torture that make life unbearable. One of the beliefs that contribute to this torture is hierarchy system. In the novel 1984 by George Orwell and the movie Brazil directed by Terry Gilliam, there are ambitious protagonists named Winston Smith and Sam Lowry who put forth a battle against their torturous world. A third reference "The Right to Information India's Struggle Against Grass Root Corruption" written by Roy Bunker, criticizes the Indian government and their corrupt practices leading to poverty and torture of the poor to maintain control over their societies. These three texts portray government of developing countries torturing their citizens with the help of hierarchical
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.
In the article, “The Torture Myth,” Anne Applebaum explores the controversial topic of torture practices, focused primarily in The United States. The article was published on January 12, 2005, inspired by the dramatic increase of tensions between terrorist organizations and The United States. Applebaum explores three equality titillating concepts within the article. Applebaum's questions the actual effectiveness of using torture as a means of obtaining valuable information in urgent times. Applebaum explores the ways in which she feels that the United States’ torture policy ultimately produces negative effects upon the country. Applebaum's final question is if torture is not optimally successful, why so much of society believes it works efficiently.
America’s Use of Torture in Interrogations of Suspected Terrorists Violates Human Rights by Lisa Hajjar
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
War, crime, and death are subjects that most don’t like to talk or even hear about, but unfortunately in today’s world, it is our reality. We hear of the horrible and inhumane things that go on in our world every day, and when it comes to war, crime, and death, another controversial topic gets brought up: torture. In A Case for Torture, author Mirko Bagaric speaks of torture and how sometimes, unfortunately, torture is not only recommended, but necessary when it comes to the safety of the public. Bagaric explains that although torture is never a pretty thing, sometimes the loss and pain of one criminal could lead to the saved lives of perhaps not just one, but many innocent people. Growing up in this country hearing about war, it is easy to agree with this statement. Torture will never truly be the right thing to do, but sometimes it simply has to be done, for the good of the public.
On the opposite side, there are people very much in favor of the use of torture. To them, torture is a “morally defensible” interrogation method (8). The most widely used reason for torture is when many lives are in imminent danger. This means that any forms of causing harm are acceptable. This may seem reasonable, as you sacrifice one life to save way more, but it’s demoralizing. The arguments that justify torture usually are way too extreme to happen in the real world. The golden rule also plays a big rol...
Torture is a tool used to gain information, for punishment, or for revenge. People think it’s okay to use torture as long as it’s for a good reason, but what excuse is there to justify torture? Violating a person’s rights and treating them like less than a human is never acceptable. Although torture is sometimes successful in getting valuable information, it’s not worth stripping someone of their rights as a person.