Rhetorical Devices In The Case For Torture

I have been unable to deliberate on the appropriate alternative method for this particular dilemma. When it comes to the topic of torture, the popular attitude is that it is sometimes required. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of ethics and efficiency. Whereas some are convinced that it is an effective policy, others maintain that it is not successful practice. To further support the stance that the torture policy is not necessary effective, Army Col. Stuart Herrington inserted, in his experience, “nine out of ten people can be persuaded to talk with no 'stress methods' at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones.”

The death penalty is a topic that has been argued for and against by many people. Some have no qualms with the punishment while others protest it greatly. As such there are three main arguments that are presented by both sides; is the death penalty immoral, does the death penalty deter crime, and should the death penalty ultimately be allowed in the court of law.

There have been many great speeches delivered in the past. Some of the best ones demonstrated why our our freedoms, our liberty, and to be united as a country, is so important. John F. Kennedy’s “Inaugural Address” and Martin Luther King Junior’s “I Have a Dream” are both great examples of such historical speeches. Both these speeches have many similarities such as, referencing the past, wanting change to happen, and both desired peace. Yet with all these similarities, each one had a different style, was given to different audiences, and about different topics. In Kennedy’s “Inaugural Address”, he is expressing how the country needs to be united and “…anew the quest for peace” (11), with our enemies. King’s

This previous knowledge and image of JFK builds up his ethos before the address was even given. The speech has many quotes that are still well remembered and hold a deep impact in many American lives today. Most notably was the qoute, “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country”(JFK Library). This quote is a prime example of how JFK bridges appeals, pathos and logos, it creates a middle ground and commonality between JFK and the citizens. Also the sense of patriotism brought from this quote is a great example of pathos.

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 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 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.

In "A Hanging," George Orwell utilizes the rhetorical appeals of pathos and ethos in historical context to convince the audience that the unjustifiable execution of a person is not only barbaric, but unethical. This is successful because of his sensitive word choice and sympathetic tone.

In the article, “THE REAL ANSWER TO MASS INCARCERATION”, Gilad Edelman analyzes President Obama's views on the increasingly high prison population in the United States, and what his plans are to help the mass incarceration issue our country faces.The author refers to the statistics given by Obama during his speech that demonstrated the high percentage of prisoners we have in the United States compared to the rest of the world. Gilad Edelman also addresses one of Obama's main focuses which is the impact nonviolent criminals have in our prison population, and how new policies need to be implemented in efforts of shortening sentences or releasing some prisoners. Another reference the author makes is to Leon Neyfakh with regard to the topic

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 into thinking 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 articles academic standing and arguably renders the entire case futile. Levin’s strategy of playing with the fears of people is genius, but, with more

Steele, Brent J. “ The insecurity of America: The Curious Case of Torture’s Escalating Popularity.” Justice, Sustinability, and security: Globl Ethics for the 21st Century, Eric Henze, 1st. Palgrave Macmiliian, New York, 2013.

Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture” argues that there are various reasons for allowing torture to exist in the United States of America. Levin would love to see society change its negative views on torture so that, under certain circumstances, torture would be permissible. The article starts off with a very brief description of how he believes society views the subject of torture as a negative thing. He leads on to oppose that way of thinking and provides three cases in which he believes torture must be administered with various reasons attempting to support his thoughts. The hypothetical cases Levin uses range from very extreme situations, to a situation where we may sometimes see on the news. Levin makes it clear to the audience that