A Case For Torture By Michael Levin

771 Words2 Pages

In the face of terrorism, one of the most pressing moral issues is the use of torture as a means of extracting information. The essay, “A Case for Torture”, by philosopher Michael Levin, is a persuasive piece in which the writer incorporates a formal vocabulary, an informal point of view, and an informal/formal tone in order to make readers consider the validity and morality of the use of torture in dire situations.
Throughout his essay, Levin uses a formal vocabulary to give himself authority on speaking about a controversial topic such as torture. As most western democracies outright ban torture and regard it as cruel, Levin must formalise his diction in order to speak to an educated, moral audience. To attain authority in his argument, Levin uses formal vocabulary in his essay, as demonstrated by his choice of uncommon and academic words, which include, “. . . arraign. . .”, “. . .deference. . .”, “. . . extant. . .”, and “. . . malefactors. . .(Levin)”. His vocabulary choice elevates his argument to a higher level, appealing to intellectual audiences. By using an academic vocabulary, the writer gives himself a more rational and intellectual ground for his argument of whether or not torture …show more content…

He questions readers’ pre-existing morals by asking if it is better torture one or let millions die, then ‘proving’ himself to be a more ‘moral’ person than any of the readers. Using an informal first person to reassure dubious readers, the author answers his own question by suggesting that the only ethical resolution is to torture the terrorist, thereafter personally inviting readers to have an open mind about torture as a means to save lives. Levin’s use of first person effectively manipulates readers into trusting Levin due to his apparently superior moral logic, making it more likely that readers agree with Levin’s

Open Document