Rhetorical Analysis Of Michael Levin 's The Case For Torture

With his article “The Case for Torture” Levin has made his readers think over what the differences between the death penalty and torture. Levin provides evidences and asks questions to lead his readers into forming their own opinion on whether torture is totally unacceptable in any situation or not. But it is clear by the end of the article where Levin stands on the topic of

In his essay “offensive play” Malcolm Gladwell explains that dogfighting and football are similar and different Gladwell purpose is to declare in order to show football players and dogfighting are similar.Gladwell addresses his essay to sports enthusiasts by using ex former football players for example michael vick.Gladwell also uses medical terms to inform doctors or people.Gladwell develops this argument by using logical health problems,by using examples of formal players that got severely injured because they had to finish the game,by using quotes from players,by using imagery throughout the essay and also using comparison with dogfighting and football.

In “The Case for Torture,” Michael Levin presents logical fallacies that originate at the authors desire to relate the importance of his message. Though his specific argument is a very plausible solution to a taboo problem, the manner in which he presents it has some fallacies that cause it to be unsupported

In “The Case for Torture”, philosophy professor Michael Levin attempts to defend using torture as a means to save lives is justifiable and necessary. Throughout the article, Levin provides persuasive arguments to support his essay using clever wording and powerful, moving examples. However, the essay consists heavily of pathos, fallacies, and “What if?” situations that single out torture as the only method of resolution, rendering the argument hypothetical, weak, and unreliable for the city of San Jose as a whole community to follow.

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

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

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 Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture” he argues for the use of torture to save the lives of innocent people. Levin’s main claim is a claim of value, weighing the lives of the innocent against the lives of the guilty. Levin mainly uses hypotheticals to frame his argument as a way to illicit an emotional response from readers. This method is effective because he’s discussing such a serious topic and hypotheticals allow the reader to be immersed in his argument. He frames the discussion around these scenarios that force the reader to think critically and logically about his position. Overall, Levin appeals to emotion to successfully convince readers of his argument.

Attended Harvard and he graduated 21st of 177. He studied in the fields of sciences, German, rhetoric, philosophy, and ancient languages. (1876-1880)

"The Redeemed Captive" is about an English family man named John Williams. One night a racially mixed group of thieves breaks into his house. The Thieves killed two of his children then brought him and the rest of the family along. They found themselves on a very long march among their neighbors, being taken towards Canada. The captors who the English refer to as masters were brutal to them injuring and usually killing those who could no longer March. When they arrive at a French community the French treated the Europeans very kindly while treating the Natives poorly. Finally they reached canada where the mayor took them in and they were safe again. Stories often use rhetorical appeals to further capture the audience's emotions or persuade

I believe that through his analogies of the misuse of body parts, counter arguments and his response to them, as well as the logical implications, Michael Levin poses a strong case that homosexuality is abnormal. With that said, the purpose of this paper is to analyze Levin’s argument, to do that I will address the parts previously mentioned, analogies, a counter argument, and logical implications.

1967 - He graduates from University of Michigan for master's and also a doctorate in math.

It is clear from the start of this essay that Levin’s is not against the use of torture. This is made clear by the use of his vague hypothetical scenarios which are lacking important details needed to make an educated decision of the choices

We can trace the origins of torture (and with it, it’s ever-present ethical and logical debate) all the way back to 530AD, which was when prestigious Roman jurists paved the road for this moral argument, in stating that they believe the result of such torment was “the highest form of truth,” and Demosthenes, a Greek legal orator, stood in solidarity with that idea, adding to it that, “no statements made as a result of torture have ever been proved to be untrue” (Green). And then of course, with these confident advocates, came critics as well. Aristotle recognized that, “those under compulsion are as likely to give false evidence as true… while others are really ready to make false charges against others in the hope of being sooner released

The use of torture as a weapon for coercing an individual to do or say something of desire or for intimidation is a widely debated subject worldwide, though some level of torture is utilized by most countries, including those that are often regarded as being highly civil (Cahn, 2016, p.296-27). Given that, based on data from Amnesty International, the use of torture is on the rise, it is extremely important to explore the moral significance of torture as a weapon of both coercion and intimidation (Cahn, 2016, p.296). According to Henry Shue, a former researcher and Professor of Philosophy at Cornell University, torture is “contrary to every international law, including the laws of war” and is morally never acceptable, though there are very limited circumstances in which the use of torture is less morally unacceptable, such as when the use of torture satisfies the constraints of possible compliance (Cahn, 2016, p.296-298; Mertel, 2017a, slide 2). The first part of this paper will examine Shue’s argument by exploring “the constraint of possible compliance” and its importance to Shue, and will discuss the various forms of torture and their relation to this key concept. The second part will defend Shue’s stance on the moral acceptance of torture by analyzing the key points he puts forward in his argument and demonstrating their moral plausibility. The final part will offer one potential objection to this position and a refute argument to the objection.