What Is The Case For Torture

At the beginning of Levin’s’ article “The Case for Torture,” Levin states what he believes the public thinks about torture: “It is generally assumed that torture is impermissible, a throwback to a more brutal age. Enlightened

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 “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 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 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 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 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.

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).

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

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

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,

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 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.