Neuroscientist Sam Harris, author of the article "In Defense of Torture", blogged on October 18, 2005, his strong position about legitimate torture of the terrorists. Harris begins to emphasize his credibility with the use of tone and opinion, citing convincing facts and statistics, and successfully employing emotional appeals; however, toward the end of the article, the author fails to completely clarify his thinking. Although harris argues his position on the subject of torture, his article proposes mixed emotions towards the topic.
"Samuel Benjamin "Sam" Harris (born April 9, 1967) is an American author, philosopher, and neuroscientist"(wikipedia.org). Harris obtained his philosophy Bachelors of Arts in 2000 from Stanford University. Years
…show more content…
later, in 2009, he received his Doctor of Philosophy degree from University of California, Los Angeles. Many believe Harris displays a bias attitude towards religious followers because He says that "religion is especially rife with bad ideas, so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them."(wikipedia.org). this bias reaction could play a factor in his arguments regarding torture to terrorist of other cultural and beliefs. Harris writes his article with several rhetorical strategies that appeal to a variety of audiences, such as parents of a victim, and also closely related family members of the blamed. In his article, Harris first sets the stage by describing a specific scenario, he says, picture your seven-year-old daughter being slowly asphyxiated in a warehouse just five minutes away, while the man in your custody holds the keys her release.
If your daughter won't tip the scales, then add the daughters of every couple for a thousand miles--millions of little girls have, by some perverse negligence on the part of our government, come under the control of an evil genius who now sits before you in shackles. (Harris 1)
This storyline appeals to the emotional senses of the audience, which in this senator, Harris's obvious target audience is parents. Harris successfully relates to his audience by providing pathos in his writing, he clearly understands what statements should be incorporated in his article that will properly persuade the reader in
…show more content…
agreement. Along with strong pathos appeals, Harris also refers to logos in the end of the article. However, the author ineffectively provides support to his argument. Harris explains that torture should be acceptable during circumstances that involve extracting valuable information from the terrorists. He imagines a pill, he calls the "truth pill" that would be used under occurrences related to forcing information from terrorist without physically torturing the hostage. However, this imaginary pill leaves the audience wondering "Is this feasible?", "is the given information reliable?", and "is this logical?". Harris does not fully provide the audience with facts or sources to properly support his claim. Through his piece, Harris connects to his readers by utilizing real life examples.
Harris describes a situation in his article "of one’s grandfather as an active participant in the Second World War as a pilot who had dropped bombs over Dresden, and as a result killed unknown numbers of innocent people"(blogspot.com). Harris provides this real life situation as a way to relate to his audience and promote engagement. Although the use of real life examples are effective, the particular scenario used is insufficient to Harris's main point. Harris is successful in pulling his audience into a real life example, however, he fails to concentrate on the main idea that torturing is a possible source of
punishment. Harris lacks a level of effectiveness through his article by not clearly stating his opinion. For example, Harris argues within him self the appropriate circumstances for when torture should be acceptable. However his main idea is the acceptance of torture. Meanwhile, he states many pros and cons of this concept, resulting in confusion for reader. Overall, Harris used a variety of different approaches to effectively persuade his audience as to why torture should be favorable. The most eloquent rhetorical systems used in Harris's article were pathos, logos, and real life scenarios. In spite the author's effective reasoning, Harris convoys a absence in providing the reader with a set stand point. Altogether, Harris supplies the audience with valid points regarding his stand point on the appropriate use of torture, however, he fails to properly retain a constant outlook.
Blood chilling screams, families torn apart, horrifying murders are all parts of the Holocaust. David Faber, a courageous, young man tortured in a Nazi concentration camp shares the horrors he was exposed to, including his brother Romek’s murder, in the book Because of Romek, by himself David Faber. When Nazis invaded his hometown in Poland during World War II, David remained brave throughout his father’s arrest and his struggle to stay alive in the concentration camp. David’s mother inspired him with courage.
Kurt Vonnegut, a modern American writer, composed stories about fictional situations that occurred in futuristic versions of today’s world. His stories included violence, both upon oneself and one another, and characters who sought out revenge. In “2BR02B” and “Harrison Bergeron”, Vonnegut conveys physical violence most likely experienced while a prisoner of World War 2, as a way to show how war brings pain and destruction.
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
The chapter “A Fathers Influence” is constructed with several techniques including selection of detail, choice of language, characterization, structure and writers point of view to reveal Blackburn’s values of social acceptance, parenting, family love, and a father’s influence. Consequently revealing her attitude that a child’s upbringing and there parents influence alter the characterization of a child significantly.
The atrocities of war can take an “ordinary man” and turn him into a ruthless killer under the right circumstances. This is exactly what Browning argues happened to the “ordinary Germans” of Reserve Police Battalion 101 during the mass murders and deportations during the Final Solution in Poland. Browning argues that a superiority complex was instilled in the German soldiers because of the mass publications of Nazi propaganda and the ideological education provided to German soldiers, both of which were rooted in hatred, racism, and anti-Semitism. Browning provides proof of Nazi propaganda and first-hand witness accounts of commanders disobeying orders and excusing reservists from duties to convince the reader that many of the men contributing to the mass
Many people believe they could never commit the crime of torture; yet, Milgram, along with many others, have discovered that the converse is true. At the beginning of his piloted experiment, Milgram predicted virtually all the participants would refuse to continue. He was proven wrong when twenty-five out of forty participants continued past the point of 150 volts (80). He surmised, as the experiment progressed from the piloted study to the regular series, the total out come of average persons response was the same as they had observed in the prior study--solidifying the thought even your "average Joe" is capable of torture (81). While Milgram supports this legitimate thought with facts, stories, and examples, news and world reporter Szegedy-Maszak simply states "...Everyman is a potential torturer"(76). In correspondence with both Milgram and
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...
Alan Dershowitz challenges the legitimization of non-lethal torture in his essay, “Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist be tortured?” He claims that torture should indeed be legitimized for specific scenarios that require such action. The ticking bomb terrorist gives the example of a terrorist withholding time-sensitive information that could result in the death of innocent citizens, if not shared. Not only does Dershowitz challenge the idea of torture, but he also gives a probable solution that favors the legitimization the torture. He mentions three values that would have to be complied with by all three branches of government if it were to be legitimated, which Dershowitz does endorse. The arguments of the two perspectives discussed in the
The arguments of Christopher Browning and Daniel John Goldhagen contrast greatly based on the underlining meaning of the Holocaust to ordinary Germans. Why did ordinary citizens participate in the process of mass murder? Christopher Browning examines the history of a battalion of the Order Police who participated in mass shootings and deportations. He debunks the idea that these ordinary men were simply coerced to kill but stops short of Goldhagen's simplistic thesis. Browning uncovers the fact that Major Trapp offered at one time to excuse anyone from the task of killing who was "not up to it." Despite this offer, most of the men chose to kill anyway. Browning's traces how these murderers gradually became less "squeamish" about the killing process and delves into explanations of how and why people could behave in such a manner.
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
Michael Levin's article on "The Case for Torture." is an article which mainly discusess the use
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 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 articles creditability.
Additionally, he does not make an effort to explain why corporal punishment would be more effective or successful than imprisonment. He persuades the audience by using verbal irony and statistics. When he first mentions prison, he uses verbal irony towards the subject to express his true attitude towards imprisonment by saying that locking people in cages is more humane than punishing them physically (197). This statement is ironic because he actually believes that imprisonment is a worse punishment than corporal punishment, but says that it is more humane to ridicule the opposing argument.
The issue of torture is nothing new. It was done in the past and it’s done now in the 21st century. Without saying one side is right and the other side is wrong, let us discuss the part that we agree on and find common ground. We as Americans want to protect Americans from harms. So how do we prevent that from happening without torturing? It is impossible to get answer without some sort of questioning and intimidation techniques, since we know captured prisoners during war are not easily going to give up information. We know the enemy we face doesn’t follow the Geneva Convention or any law that pertains to war, so does that mean we shouldn’t also follow the Geneva Convention also, which prohibits torture? Of course not, because we want to be example for the world. Republicans argue that we have to do whatever is necessary to keep Americans safe, and Democrats argue it goes against our values and makes us look bad. We as Americans, as leader of the free world we
Around the world and around the clock, human rights violations seem to never cease. In particular, torture violations are still rampant all over the world. One regime, the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, establishes a strong elaboration of norms against torture. Despite its efforts, many countries still outright reject its policies against torture while other countries openly accept them, but surreptitiously still violate them. The US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia all have failed to end torture despite accepting the provisions of the Convention.