'Michael Levin’s the Case for Torture (Review)\r'

'Michael Levin’s â€Å"The fount for extort” argues that there ar miscellaneous motives for allowing bedevilment to exist in the United States of America. Levin would love to distinguish society change its negative views on optical aberration so that, under certain circumstances, suffering would be permissible. The article starts off with a solidly legal brief commentary of how he banks society views the subject of frustrate as a negative thing. He leads on to oppose that way of deliberateing and provides triad issues in which he believes straining must be administered with various authors attempting to support his thoughts.\r\nThe suppositional upshots Levin uses range from real utmost(prenominal) topographic points, to a situation where we may any(prenominal)(prenominal)times invite on the news. Levin concurs it buy the farm to the audience that he does not agree with rag as a penalty and focuses on on the nose what it should be empl oy for. He also stresses that there is an important difference in the midst of terrorists and victims and he believes it would stop the talk of â€Å"terrorist practiceds”. Levin also writes on his belief that most terrorist do their crimes for publicity and because of that, the terrorist shall be fairly easy to identify and later be frustrated.\r\nHe closes the article by saying excruciation would cause little danger to western democracies and predicting what he believes pass on happen in the future. After m any a(prenominal) through readings of Michael Levin’s article, I olfactory sensation the pose he carries along thorough the article presents him as an self-assertingly self as accreditedd soulfulness. Most of the cogitate he gives is heavily based on scummy appeals. The force of pathos he puts into the subscriber is very compelling but does not fulfill the line of products as well as it should because of the lack of beneficial logic and logical mob iliseing. Levin uses three main catchs to convince endorsers why torture should be used.\r\nThe first-class honours degree major point includes three hypothetical cases as big reason to why it‘s important. His entropy point explains the reason for the need of torture. Finally he states who bushels to receive the rack and briefly notices what the outcome may be. Levins biggest point is generated from the three hypothetical cases he provides the reader with. In my opinion, they atomic number 18 clearly work more as an aflame fount and not a good for you(p) reason. The initiative case is one in which an atomic give out is put on Manhattan Island and pull up stakes blow at noon. The suspect demands money and deviation of his friends from jail.\r\nHe is caught at 10 A. M. and the man won’t key out any information on the misfire. â€Å"What do you do” (201)? The 2nd case speaks of a go deplorable on a jumbo jet. The suspects demands corporationnot be met. Won’t we do anything to the blackmailer to the save the passengers (201)? The 3rd hypothetical case is provided with results from a quaternary mortal poll. The case is one in which a newborn bodge is kidnapped from a hospital. Would you allow the torturing of the abductor in order to get him cover version? I tactual sensation that all three hypothetical situations mystify something around them that do not pip me feel convinced.\r\nThe first situation in which the bomb is planted Manhattan Island seems withal unrealistic due to reasons that you dont always hear of this potpourri of stuff on the news and also that the torpedo is captured. Even if a person demands money and release of his friends from jail, Levin does not explain how somebody would go approximately finding this person wher ever so he is cin one caseal? Levin also has a very weak make love in explaining the situation because when he speaks of the fighter, he says â€Å"Preferring closin g to failure †Won’t disclose where the bomb is. ”(201).\r\nSaying to readers he prefers death to failure would logically mean that, even if tortured, the man is still not sack to disclose the information because he would preferably die than failing his mission in receiving his needs. The second situations weakness comes from a lack of critical information and once again the r atomic number 18ness of the situation. The situation involves a elephantine Jet in which a bomb has been planted which bath be defused still by the bomber which is in police custody. Levin says â€Å"Surely we can, we must, do anything to the extortionist to save the passengers” (201).\r\nOnce again, what exactly is torture going to do in this situation if the bomb is in the air on the plane? How exactly is the bomb going to be defused? I feel that this situation could have made much give way of an business if he would have taken the time to clear up exactly how the bomb was goin g to get defused. Later in the paragraph Levin adds in, â€Å"If you caught the terrorist, could you sleep nights intimate that millions died because you couldnt bring yourself to apply the electrodes? â€Å"(201). It is clearly an stirred uply wonky sentence.\r\nHe purposely italicizes the word â€Å"you” because he wants you to determine into that thought and make you feel really bad about the situation. The third hypothetical case, which I witness weakest, is explained with results of an informal poll based on the situation. In the poll, four mothers atomic number 18 asked if they would approve the torturing of the kidnapper that kidnaps their child if that were necessary to get them back. All four mothers said they would approve of it. I feel this business line does not give a great example of what makes torture acceptable.\r\nIt is more of an example to show what somebody would do for their loved ones. Its weakness is clearly seen in the number of participants i n the poll that he is victimization and in the biased opinion they most probable already had. The best part of Levin’s reasoning is expressed when he speaks of why exactly he believes torture should be accepted and not viewed upon as something horrible. In the article, Levin says â€Å"I am advocating torture as an acceptable measure for preventing future evils. ”(201). He does a well behaved argument of making it clear exactly what he way of life.\r\nIn doing so, he briefly explains an strain he believes tidy sum against the death penalty use. The personal credit line is that by killing the murderer, you are not legal transfer back the victim that was killed. Levin explains that instead of killing subsequently a murder has occurred, he advocates that torturing someone stops the innocent from being dispatched. Levin makes it clear that torture should ONLY be used for the saving of lives. This leads to what he believes is the most powerful argument against t orture. People would aver that such practices disregard the unspoileds of the individual.\r\nLevin first counter-argument is presented when he says â€Å"Well, if the individual is all that important, and he is, it is correspondingly important to protect the rights of individuals threatened by terrorist. â€Å"(201). It seemed standardized a very sound argument to me because of the way he used anti-torture line to support his pro-torture argument. Levin later says â€Å"Un similar his victims, he (the terrorist) volunteered the risks of his deed. By threatening to kill for profit or idealism, he renounces cultured standards, and he can have no complaint if civilization tries to thwart him by w abominatever means necessary. (202). He thinks if a person decides to oppose civilized standards, he should not promise to be treated with the same rights as the people who do follow civilized standards. Although it sounds reasonable, he does make an assumption here. Levin assumes th at the suspect KNOWS they are going against civilized standards. Does this mean that a sociopath that cannot distinguish amid civilized standards would not be tortured? I feel a composition more of light could help this argument. Levin addresses the issue of torturing the wrong person.\r\nHe starts off by making an assumption terrorist title themselves and perform for television and public recognition. Levin says â€Å"After all, you can’t very well intimidate a government into releasing your freedom fighters unless you announce that it is your throng that has seized its embassy. ”(202). It is just another hypothetical situation to turn over things his way without providing documented evidence of a real life situation where the terrorist actually identified themselves. It is as though in his eyes, he thinks finding the right perpetrator is a very simple task.\r\nFinally, in the last paragraph he says â€Å"There entrust be little danger that the western democra cies pass on lose their way if they choose to inflict inconvenience as a way of preserving order. I observe that his claim seems a bit modified in the last paragraph. Levin starts the article speaking of torture ONLY for the saving of innocent lives, but now, he speaks of torture for preserving order. Does this broaden up the whole claim? He also predicts that someday soon many lives will be threatened and torture will be the only way to save them.\r\nThis prediction is support by no evidence what so ever and is clearly only to provide fear to the person reading it. The discussion of key terms was right in this article. When he speaks of torture the closest description I found that define torture to Levin is: â€Å"Subjecting someone to the most excruciating pain. ” This may seem like a great description of what we see as torture but the example of torture he mentions is â€Å"having the electrodes applied”. I really wasn’t sure what he was referring to unti l I looked it up online and read that electrodes are what kill you in the electric chair.\r\nI believe he did not provide any better example of this because it can very well make a reader oppose of the torturing right away if he speaks of a more sick(p) example. Levin also uses the word moral cowardice to describe allowing the death of millions of innocent lives. He does a good job by explaining that it means the unwillingness of modify ones hands. Regarding tone and ethos, the author starts off taking a big risk by introducing the topic of torture as something societies reject outright, then saying he opposes the beliefs of society on that topic. Not only does he just oppose it, he says it is unwise.\r\nI think by doing that, he may give the reader a sense that he thinks only his beliefs are wise and that he does not respect any other ideas. Throughout the article, Levin restrains to carry the situation of a know it all. Levin says â€Å"Opponents of the death penalty, for exa mple are eer swaning that executing a murderer will not bring back his victim. â€Å"(201). In case you didnt notice, he says â€Å"forever insisting”. This presents an assumption in a way to make it seem like fact that death penalty opponents ALWAYS insist executing will not bring back his victim.\r\nNot only does his statement risk pique the death penalty opponents, it can also continue to promote his know it all attitude which can surely annoy other people too. other occasion of his overly aggressive attitude is when he says â€Å"Once you concede that torture is justified in extreme cases, you have admitted that the decision to use torture is a matter of balancing innocent lives against the means needed to save them. â€Å"(201). Whether or not it makes sense, he is clearly making an assumption that we admit to something by agreeing on another thing. The way he worded that may seem a bit too aggressive for a general audience.\r\nOn the other hand, some people can al so see that attitude as a good thing because they feel the person they are listening to actually knows what they are talking about. Even though he carries the assertive attitude through most of the article, when it comes to speaking of his hypothetical cases he tries to change his tone to more of an emotional one that is more likely to affect the reader. This just is a good thing, because it can make the reader a bit more vulnerable to move into his emotional example. Ultimately then â€Å"The Case for Torture” is very mixed in effectiveness. The hypothetical cases sound a bit too rare and marvelous to appen but it can cause the audience to think it out. Only minor elements of his reasoning are sound and effective. But his reasoning needs a bit more of support from some other dwelling house and his hypothetical situations can certainly use some actually documentation of the occurrences he speaks of. I do not believe this essay does the total job in changing peoples minds from anti-torture to pro-torture. But I do think that the people who were already anti-torture surely hate this guy a bit more curiously because of the attitude. I think this essay leaves a humongous amount of places for it to be attacked by a person who does not believe in torture.\r\n'