Michael Levin Torture Summary

537 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Torture—Is it Ever Ethical

Torture
The assumption by people that torture is not right is disputable. It is not morally right according to many. However, Levin argues that the belief is based on ignorance, as there are some situations where torture is unavoidable. The main idea presented by Michael Levin is torture and its admission to the people who are tortured. He argues that torturing is not meant to punish the victims, but rather to help solve the cases where a number of innocent persons’ lives are at stake. He gives an example where a terrorist wants to execute killings to innocent people for their own selfish gains. In such an instance, it is prudent for the malicious person to be stopped in time before the execution takes place. The only way to stop such is not by killing the person but by making that person speak out on how he plans to undertake the operation. For instance, a bomb may have been planted in an island bearing lives of people who are not aware, and the bomb’s location is not known. He argues that the only way to get the information is to torture the terrorist to lure him into confession. …show more content…

On the other hand, it is not right either to risk lives of innocent persons for what it is constitutional. The lives of people are more important than the constitution. On the other hand, the legal processes are too long to depend on. Considering an emergency where people have to die if action is not taken before hand and in time, it is very right to break such law to save the lives. The argument does not just stop at that but goes further to explain that the belief that torture is not right is outdated. We are living in an era where terrorists proclaim themselves on media. They brag about what they have done and what they are yet to do. Therefore, probability that an innocent person is subjected to torture is

Show More
Related

  • Rhetorical Analysis Of Kroll's Unquiet Death Of Robert Harris

    449 Words  | 1 Pages

    He first puts forth the two mainstream arguments against capital punishment and then organizedly refutes each standpoint with credible explanations. By illustrating there are “many other jobs that are unpleasant”, he easily indicates the flaw and weakness of first argument asserted by the opposite side without much refutation and statistical evidence. In addition, in order to disprove the second argument, he proposes that death penalty is not established to deter other potential criminals but to relieve. He employs great length of humor, logos and ethos to introduce and exemplify this new concept of “katharsis” which is defined as a health and positive way to “let off steam”. Thus, the act of punishing the murders can be interpreted as “justice is served” in this case instead of “cold-blood killing” and the audiences get the feeling of satisfaction because it is a part of their human nature. In the later discussion, he also mentions that it is extremely cruel and immoral that people are put in the death house just for simply torture. By having both side perspectives, the readers are more convinced and become more acceptable to Mencken’s ideas.

    Read More

  • Michael Levin's Essay: The Case For Torture

    948 Words  | 2 Pages

    Who wouldn’t have agreed? Yes, torture is cruel but it is less cruel than the substitute in many positions. Killing Hitler wouldn’t have revived his millions of victims nor would it have ended war. But torture in this predicament is planned to bring no one back but to keep faultless people from being sent off. Of course mass murdering is far more barbaric than torture. The most influential argument against using torture as a penalty or to get an acknowledgment is that such practices ignore the rights of the particulars. Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture” discusses both sides of being with and being against torture. This essay gets readers thinking a lot about the scenarios Levin mentioned that torture is justified. Though using pathos, he doesn’t achieve the argument as well as he should because of the absence of good judgment and reasoning. In addition to emotional appeal, the author tries to make you think twice about your take on

    Read More

  • The Torture Myth, by Anne Applebaum

    897 Words  | 2 Pages

    Applebaum believes that torture should not be used as a means of gaining information from suspects. Applebaum's opinion is supported through details that the practice has not been proven optimally successful. After debating the topic, I have deliberated on agreeing with Applebaum's stance towards the torture policy. I personally agree with the thought to discontinue the practice of torture as a means of acquiring intel. I find it unacceptable that under the Bush Administration, the President decided prisoners to be considered exceptions to the Geneva Convention. As far as moral and ethical consideration, I do not believe that it is anyone's right to harm anyone else, especially if the tactic is not proven successful. After concluding an interview with Academic, Darius Rejali, Applebaum inserted that he had “recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway.” There are alternative...

    Read More

  • The Guillotine: An Enlightened Way To Kill People

    878 Words  | 2 Pages

    Is it not absurd, that the laws, which detest and punish homicide, should, in order to prevent murder, publicly commit murder themselves” (Source B). He is saying that the laws that are supposed to protect them are mostly committing public murder in execution. To continue, he also stated, “It is better to prevent crimes than to punish them” (Source B). He is saying that they should prevent crimes instead, if they want to conduct men to the maximum of happiness. A guillotine might be an execution device, but it didn’t hurt people as bad as the execution methods used before.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Alan Dershowitz 'Should The Ticking Bomb Terrorist Be Tortured'

    1238 Words  | 3 Pages

    Rather, when torture is acceptable, and on which term should be it performed? The argument lest authorization torture his an advisor Sharde presumption that torture is currently happening and will be happening in the future hence the the. Plan of torture and. Dershowitz believes in a formal, visible, accountable, and controlled system of inflicting that would ideally leave torture as a last resort. The system would begin by granting the suspect immunity. Then suspect the be would compelled to testify; if the suspect were to refuse to exchange information, the next step would be acknowledging the possibility of torture while continuing to give the option of immunity. In a case of a suspect refusing to exchange information, even with immunity, a judicial warrant must be granted to proceed with purposely elicited

    Read More

  • Critical Analysis Of Michael Levin's 'The Case For Torture'

    794 Words  | 2 Pages

    Levin wants to change the negative views that society placed on torture so that, under extreme circumstances torture would be acceptable. He begins his essay with a brief description of why society views the topic of torture as a negative thing. He disagrees with those views, and presents three different cases in which he thinks torture must be carried out with provides few reasons to support his claim. He uses hypothetical cases that are very extreme to situations that we experience in our daily lives. From the start, Levin makes it perfectly clear to the reader that he accepts torture as a punishment. He tries to distinguish the difference between terrorists, and victims in order stop the talk of terrorist “right,” (648). Levin also explains that terrorists commit their crimes for publicity, and for that reason they should be identified and be tortured. He ends his essay by saying that torture is not threat to Western democracy but rather the opposite (Levin

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The Connaught Man Who Killed His Father

    1015 Words  | 3 Pages

    ' The notion that punishment is needed as an example asserts that the punishment for murder, or the punishment any crime for that matter, should be employed as a deterrent and to inspire fear that will prevent others from fulfilling the said crime in the future. This illustrates a depressing and gloomy view of human nature, as being corrupt at its core and that fear remains the only thing that prevents us from committing evil acts. Rather, I believe that laws and the punishments associated with the infringement of laws are an agreement between a citizen and the society they live in about what is appropriate and agreeable behavior that protects the basic rights of all citizens and holds all citizens as equal in front of the law. Thus, if someone kills another person and the circumstances of the crime are not within the previously established laws, then the person should be held responsible regardless of whether one would kill that person if they could help it or

    Read More

  • Analysis of Michael Levin´s Article The Case of Torture

    856 Words  | 2 Pages

    of one's rights but, to torture a person is a breach of law that protection of interest is not

    Read More

  • Capital Punishment and Torture: Unconstitutional Or Justice?

    518 Words  | 2 Pages

    Many people agree with capital punishment and torturing. Capital punishment can be used as a threat, if broken, it will be a promise. Also knowing that there is the possibility of a death sentence gives people the incentive not to commit a crime.Torture is also a very helpful method of punishment. This works in many countries s...

    Read More

  • Pouring Salt on the Wound

    1326 Words  | 3 Pages

    The notion that fear will make a human leak information is not a novel idea. Torture has widely been used throughout the world by many groups of people. After World War II, The Geneva Convention prohibited any nation from partaking in torture. The emergence of terrorist activity on American soil brought up the question whether torture should be advocated or prohibited from a moral standpoint. The US changed the definition of torture in order to forcibly attain potentially important information from captives. Even though the new clause suggested that many of the methods the US used were now legal, other countries still had an issue in terms of honoring the Geneva Convention and basic human rights. Advocates for torture promise that countless innocent lives can be saved from the information obtained from a single torture victim. Opponents to the advocates suggest that torture often results in misleading information. Morally, torture is not justified as it degrades humans and often leaves victims scarred for life and possibly dead.

    Read More

  • Torture And Torture In 1984

    1475 Words  | 3 Pages

    Some believe that even in the most dire of situations, the act of torturing a prisoner to obtain information is not the most effective or efficient way to glean accurate information about a threat or terrorist group; experts have said that it is actually a very inefficient way to go about this and even that it is only on rare occasions that this results in useful, accurate information. However, there are also those who believe the exact opposite; that the only way to get information from a terrorist, or someone believed to be involved in terrorist activity, is to mentally break them down until they have suffered enough to surrender any information they might know or to the point where they just say whatever is necessary for the “interrogation” to stop, as in 1984.

    Read More

  • Is Torture Ever Acceptable?

    867 Words  | 2 Pages

    On the opposite side, there are people very much in favor of the use of torture. To them, torture is a “morally defensible” interrogation method (8). The most widely used reason for torture is when many lives are in imminent danger. This means that any forms of causing harm are acceptable. This may seem reasonable, as you sacrifice one life to save way more, but it’s demoralizing. The arguments that justify torture usually are way too extreme to happen in the real world. The golden rule also plays a big rol...

    Read More

  • The Case For Torture, by Michael Levin

    1173 Words  | 3 Pages

    Levin’s strategy of playing with the fears of people is genius, but, with more creditable details of the issue, the article would have sustained the scrutiny of more educated individuals. The addition of more concrete information, would have given people something to cling to, inherently improving the article's credibility. In Levin’s first instance, he depicts a scenario where a terrorist, who had placed an atomic bomb in the city, was captured. This atomic bomb is to explode in 2 hours if his demands are not met. Levin believes this is a situation in which torture is the only way of extracting the location of the bomb before it explodes.

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay: Is Torture Justified?

    725 Words  | 2 Pages

    According to a pool from the Washington post fifty nine percent of Americans think that torture is acceptable. So why is this? Maybe

    Read More

  • Kantian Enlightenment through Kafka's Colony

    1453 Words  | 3 Pages

    To begin this discussion on mortality, it is necessary to define the moral context. Therefore, for the purposes of this essay, I define the act of regularly torturing people to death without due judicial process as an affront on general morality. Discussions of Kant's views on free will would suggest that this is because taking a person's life deprives them of their free will (Newton). The act of torture, which, by definition, is an activity which the participant does not wish to engage in, also deprives a person of free will. The act of ending a person's life also deprives society of further contributions from that person which is a key element of greater enlightenment. The lack of due judicial process is more ambiguous and is not the major subject of this essay.

    Read More

More about Michael Levin Torture Summary

Open Document