What Is The Case For Torture

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

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.

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

Levin begins by tacitly admitting that torture is both unconstitutional and barbaric, but then follows each of those premises up with comparisons of the alternative of not using torture. Levin states: “Torturing the terrorist unconstitutional? Probably. But millions of lives surely outweigh constitutionality.” (Michael Levin, pg. 605) Levin begins with comforting you with the notion that torture is unconstitutional, as you would

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

The coercion and torturing captured terrorist is needed to protect national security in the war against terrorism. There are numerous justifications why the coercion or torture of terrorist is normally a lesser evil than the preventable mass murder of innocent victims (Slater, Summer 2006).

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

Firstly, as the article states its topic is on torture; however, this right away causes several problems to fully understand what he means by torture; therefore, leaving the word torture to an open interpretation. To explain, levin never makes it clear what kind of torture should be permissible. Does he believe that lynching someone to a point close to dying is a proper way of torture, or is he referring to waterboarding? In any case, the word torture could be seriously interpreted wrongfully to a mean where he himself might believe to be too extreme. Another major ambiguous word to his claims is the devised term for terrorist. Once again this is a major setback to a well-constructed philosophical article. What does Levin mean specifically by terrorist? Is he referring to al-Qaida or people from cartels? Although he presents hypothetical examples he never defines the word terrorist; thus, leaving the word open to an unclear interpretation to his exact meaning for such word. A third ambiguous phrase is the one used in his last paragraph “western democracies” this makes the whole article a bit unclear, because it fails to define exactly for what specific type

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

Many believe that those who plan on committing horrible crimes should be tortured in order to find out information on their plans. One of these people is Michael Levin. In his 1982 article “The Case for Torture.” Levin argued whether or not torture was wrong in any situation or not. Levin begins building his credibility by citing convincing facts and successfully employing emotional appeals. However, toward the end of the article, Levin makes it clear he wants his audience to come up with their own conclusion on torture.

As a result of citing torture, the book gains a contentious nature. This contention entertains the fact that the novel is a vehicle (☺ Metaphor) for Flynn to showcase his standpoint on the use of extreme measures, or torture. Despite treating both sides of the argument, Flynn attempts to persuade the reader that torture on deserving prisoners is a viable tool: “America treated terrorists better than its own citizens” (Flynn 248). Mitch Rapp is a character that Flynn utilizes to portray his message. Consequently, Rapp has an aggressive personality that influences the reader to lend credence to Flynn’s argument. Put another way, Rapp’s promotive attitude towards the use of torture against prisoners compels the reader to have identical thoughts. The title assists in introducing the concept of torture from the incipient stages of the novel. As a result, the reader progresses through the novel and becomes increasingly immersed at greater depths into Flynn and Rapp’s testimony on the use of torture. Extreme Measures is a reputable title because it allows Flynn to pose his standpoint on the controversial topic of

In this article, Andrew Sullivan, is an advocate for the abolition of torture against terrorist in the United States. During the time that this article was written, the McCain Amendment (which banned torture) was on a political limbo. What this author talks mostly about is the choice that we have to make things right, therefore ban the use of torture against terrorist. This debate takes place after Bush administration defined "torture" and permitted coercive, physical abuse of enemy combatants if "military necessity" demands it. Also after several reports found severe abuse of detainees in Afghanistan and elsewhere that has led to at least two dozen deaths during interrogation, secret torture sites in Eastern Europe and innocent detainees being murdered.

Overall, the argument uses pathos to play on the human fear of torture and sway the reader with no real logical backing. She uses quotes and phrases like “[torture] endangers our soldiers on the battlefield” and “damage[s] our country’s image,” calling on the sense of patriotism throughout America to turn the people against torture. Applebaum even goes so far as to throw out the baseless conjecture “the use of ‘special methods’ might help explain why the war is going so badly (Applebaum 37).” This appeal to emotion tries to sway the reader against torture by making the assumption that there is some connection between the use of torture and the effectiveness of enemy soldiers – a great example of the use of pathos to mislead readers.

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 “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