Michael Levin The Case Of Torture

Torture is something that is known as wrong internationally. Torture is “deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting on the orders of authority, to force a person to yield information, to confess, or any other reason” (World Medical Association, 1975, pg.1). There is a general consensus that there is a right to be free from any kind of torture as it can be found in many different human rights treaties around the world. The treaties show that all of the thoughts about torture are pointing away from the right to torture someone no matter what the case

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

Levin argues that torture should be used on terrorist in order to save people from terrorism. He further implies that this is the morally correct thing to do, because it ensures the good of the people. While his argument would be plausible in a utilitarian society, it is formidable within the cultural ideals of America as democratic societies typically tend to obscure techniques that violate natural rights and or ethics. Hence, Levin

In both of these situations, Levin appeals to the emotion of fear to justify using torture for the greater good, even if it defies a person’s constitutional rights. Presenting the case of millions of lives terrorized by an atomic bomb threat, Levin claims torture is the only resolution if, somehow, the terrorist “is caught [two hours before detonation], but … won’t disclose where the bomb is” (Levin). The author defends torture in this hyperbolic and unrealistic example to set a precedent for the justification of more realistic cases involving more modest numbers. He uses a flawed and weak

In the News Week article from 1982 Michael Levin an American philosopher and university professor, presents his premises and his conclusion to why he personally believes that torture is morally permissible. In addition Levin’s expects others to understand why such thing as torture is a permissible act that everyone should incorporate as a morally acceptable act. To commence, Levin presents his topic by presenting the usual though that torture may seem barbaric; however, he then diverts to his issue, in which he personally states his believe in the quote “There are situations in which torture is not merely permissible but morally mandatory.” Then, Levin moves on to explain his reasons for why he believes in such moral claim. For

In contrast, some individuals may debate that torture and even some more minuscule forms of torture can be beneficial to obtaining the information needed. It is debated that torture has been used in a large portion of political systems in history, and that the “degree” of torture is a significant component when deciphering right vs. wrong. Moher argues that in a political system where torture is justifiable and legal, the torture used would be less extreme than what it is today (Moher, 2013). It is reasoned that different degrees of torture are more acceptable than others, in that some are less psychologically and physically harming. A

David Figueroa Eng. 101A Professor Stern 4/20/15 Final draft In conclusion, in discussions of torture, one controversial issue has been on the use of it. On one hand, the people against torture argue that it is cruel and unusual punishment. On the other hand, those for torture argue that it should be used for the greater good. Others even maintain that under extreme circumstances, it may be admissible if it can save American lives. My own view is that no one should be subjected to cruel punishment because it is not only illegal, unreliable, ineffective, time consuming, it also has too many flaws that could potentially ruin innocent lives. The definition of torture is any act, whether physical or emotional, or maybe both, is intentionally subjected to a specific individual or a group for many reasons. Most of these reasons that torture is administered is for extracting information from an individual or just for punishing him/her for a crime that he/she has committed or is suspected of committing. The use of torture can be used to intimidate a person to give information that may be beneficial for a nation. The use of torture has been used for many centuries. The purposes of using torture have changed over the years as well as the methods in which a person is tortured. One crucial piece that has been established that separates us human beings from barbarians is the prohibition of using torture. There are many reasons why torture has been deemed a crime now in society. There are

In the article, “Laying Claim to a Higher Morality,” Melissa Mae discusses the controversial topic of using torture as a part of interrogating detainees. She finds the common ground between the supporting and opposing sides of the argument by comparing two different sources, “Inhuman Behavior” and “A Case for Torture.” Mae includes clear transitions from each side of the argument and concise details to ensure that the essay was well constructed. The purpose of the essay is clear, and it is interesting, insightful, and unbiased.

Levin also shies away from showing the other side of the argument, for good reason. He focuses such a large portion of his essay showing terrorism and showing fear but he doesn’t show torture but in passing. If someone were to challenge Levin, an effective way would be to flip the discussion on him and show the other side.

There are different laws over all countries that control by every government in the world. For those who is a criminal or a prisoner, their country’s government has different laws of punishment to punish them. Torture is one of them. The function of torture is to force someone to say something and as a punishment. Torture is unacceptable which I disagree on which it is an action of inhumanly.

Torture has long been a controversial issue in the battle against terrorism. Especially, the catastrophic incident of September 11, 2001 has once again brought the issue into debate, and this time with more rage than ever before. Even until today, the debate over should we or should we not use torture interrogation to obtain information from terrorists has never died down. Many questions were brought up: Does the method go against the law of human rights? Does it help prevent more terrorist attacks? Should it be made visible by law? It is undeniable that the use of torture interrogation surely brings up a lot of problems as well as criticism. One of the biggest problems is that if torture is effective at all. There are

In the article The Case For Torture by Michael Levan his emotional tone and word choice enforces the importance of the issue of torturing terrorists. Michael Levin uses imaginary highly unlikely scenarios to get into the minds of his readers. For example in paragraph 6 he tells readers to imagine that a terrorist group kidnapped a newborn baby from a hospital. Then he asked four mothers of newborn babies if they approved of torturing the kidnappers in order to get their child back. This method gets into readers heads.

Levin compares assassination to torture, those two aren’t even close to being parallel. The act of assassination is killing someone without the ulterior motive of getting information out of them, the act of torture, if executed by our government, is executing physical and mental pain on an individual with an end goal of achieving certain information. The two shouldn’t even be placed in the same category. The outlandish uses of examples and comparisons just further contribute to the fact that Levin has no real understanding on the subject at

Exceptional examples are put forth. In particular paragraph two, depicting a scene where some terrorists have planted an atomic bomb on Manhattan Island, is excellent. Although hypothetical, this example is semi-plausible and serves to back up Levin’s claim that torture is justifiable in certain cases. For instance, in Levin’s example, by torturing a captured terrorist, associated with planting an atomic bomb, the location of this bomb could be found. In turn millions of American lives would be saved. Another effective method of development used by Levin is reasoning in paragraph eight. He argues that if nation A learns nation B is about to launch an unprovoked attack, nation A can destroy nation B’s military. Similarly, police should be able to torture to save the lives of those who would otherwise die at the hands of terrorists or kidnappers. So, Levin effectively reasons for the justified use of torture (since the concept of a pre-emptive strike is an accepted practice

Levin continues by stating torture is not used as a form of punishment but used for “preventing future evils.” His explanation of how the rights of a single person are necessary and that those rights should be protected from terrorist. If this is held to be true, then who is to say, the rights of the terrorist are any less significant than rights of the people he or she is threatening. It is agreed that drastic measures, in times of extreme circumstance, must be executed to protect life. On the other hand, if one dies as a result of torture, is the torturer any different than the terrorist who was threatening life. When asked Lucas Stanley,