Michael Levin’s the Case for Torture (Review)

Michael Levins The Case for Torture argues that there be miscellaneous reasons for allowing throe to exist in the United States of America. Levin would love to detect society change its negative views on torture so that, under certain circumstances, torture would be permissible. The member starts off with a really brief description of how he believes society views the subject of torture as a negative thing. He leads on to oppose that way of thinking and provides three cases in which he believes torture must be administered with various reasons attempting to support his thoughts.The hypothetic cases Levin procedures range from very extreme situations, to a situation where we may some sequences see on the news. Levin makes it clear to the hearing that he does non agree with torture as a punishment and focuses on exactly what it should be used for. He withal stresses that there is an important spillage away between terrorists and victims and he believes it would stop the tal k of terrorist rights. Levin also writes on his belief that most terrorist do their crimes for promotional material and because of that, the terrorist shall be fairly easy to identify and later be torture.He closes the article by verbalism torture would cause little danger to western democracies and predicting what he believes will happen in the future. after umpteen through showings of Michael Levins article, I line up the attitude he carries along thorough the article presents him as an aggressively self assured person. Most of the reasoning he hands is heavily based on pathetic appeals. The force of pathos he puts into the reader is very compelling but does not fulfill the argument as well as it should because of the lack of good logic and reasoning. Levin uses three main points to win over readers why torture should be used.The first major point includes three hypothetical cases as fine-looking reason to why its important. His second point explains the reason for the n eed of torture. Finally he states who gets to welcome the twisting and in short describes what the outcome may be. Levins biggest point is generated from the three hypothetical cases he provides the reader with. In my opinion, they are clearly work more as an emotional example and not a estimable reason. The 1st case is one in which an atomic break is planted on Manhattan Island and will cocker at noon. The suspect demands notes and release of his friends from jail.He is caught at 10 A. M. and the man wont disclose either info on the break down. What do you do (201)? The 2nd case speaks of a bomb on a jumbo jet. The suspects demands flush toiletnot be met. Wont we do anything to the extortionist to the save the passengers (201)? The third hypothetical case is provided with results from a four person poll. The case is one in which a immature baby is kidnapped from a hospital. Would you allow the distortion of the kidnapper in order to get him back? I looking that all th ree hypothetical situations have something about them that do not make me find convinced.The first situation in which the bomb is planted Manhattan Island bets withal unrealistic due to reasons that you dont always pick up of this kind of stuff on the news and also that the bomber is captured. Even if a person demands money and release of his friends from jail, Levin does not explain how somebody would go about decision this person wherever he is hiding? Levin also has a very weak spot in explaining the situation because when he speaks of the bomber, he says Preferring death to disaster Wont disclose where the bomb is. (201).Saying to readers he prefers death to failure would logically mean that, even if tortured, the man is still not going to disclose the information because he would rather die than failing his mission in receiving his needs. The second situations weakness comes from a lack of critical information and once again the rareness of the situation. The situation in volves a Jumbo Jet in which a bomb has been planted which can be defused ONLY by the bomber which is in police custody. Levin says Surely we can, we must, do anything to the extortionist to save the passengers (201).Once 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 better of an argument if he would have taken the time to clear up exactly how the bomb was going to get defused. Later in the paragraph Levin adds in, If you caught the terrorist, could you balance nights knowing that millions died because you couldnt tot up yourself to apply the electrodes? (201). It is clearly an emotionally loaded sentence.He purposely italicizes the word you because he wants you to sink into that thought and make you feel really bad about the situation. The third hypothetical case, which I consider weakest, is explained with results of an informal poll based on the situation. In the poll, four mothers are asked if they would approve the torturesome 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 argument does not give a great example of what makes torture acceptable.It is more of an example to image what someone would do for their loved ones. Its weakness is clearly seen in the number of participants in the poll that he is using and in the biased opinion they most likely already had. The best part of Levins 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 I am advocating torture as an acceptable measure for preventing future evils. (201). He does a good job of making it clear exactly what he means.In doing so, he briefly explains an argument he believes spate against the death penalty use. The argument is that by killing th e murderer, you are not bringing back the victim that was killed. Levin explains that instead of killing after a murder has occurred, he advocates that torturing someone stops the guiltless from being dispatched. Levin makes it clear that torture should ONLY be used for the rescue of lives. This leads to what he believes is the most powerful argument against torture. People would insist that such practices disregard the rights of the individual.Levin first counter-argument is presented when he says Well, if the individual is all that important, and he is, it is correspondingly important to protect the rights of individuals threatened by terrorist. (201). It come outed like a very sound argument to me because of the way he used anti-torture line to support his pro-torture argument. Levin later says unalike his victims, he (the terrorist) volunteered the risks of his deed. By threatening to kill for profit or idealism, he renounces civilized standards, and he can have no complaint if civilization tries to thwart him by whatever means necessary. (202). He thinks if a person decides to oppose civilized standards, he should not expect 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 that the suspect KNOWS they are going against civilized standards. Does this mean that a sociopath that cannot distinguish between civilized standards would not be tortured? I feel a bit more of clarification could help this argument. Levin addresses the issue of torturing the persecute person.He starts off by making an assumption terrorist proclaim themselves and perform for television and public recognition. Levin says later on all, you cant very well intimidate a government into releasing your freedom fighters unless you proclaim that it is your group that has seized its embassy. (202). It is just another hypothetical situation to bend things his way without providin g documented evidence of a real life situation where the terrorist rattling identified themselves. It is as though in his eyes, he thinks finding the right perpetrator is a very simple task.Finally, in the last paragraph he says at that place will be little danger that the western democracies will lose their way if they choose to see pain as a way of preserving order. I noticed that his claim seems a bit change in the last paragraph. Levin starts the article intercommunicate 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 hardly way to save them.This foresight is supported by no evidence what so ever and is clearly only to provide idolise to the person reading it. The discussion of key terms was decent in this article. When he speaks of torture the ambient description I found that define torture to Levin is 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 having the electrodes applied. I really wasnt sure what he was referring to until I looked it up online and read that electrodes are what kill you in the electric chair.I 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 gruesome 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 involuntariness of dirtying ones hands. Regarding tone and ethos, the author starts off taking a big risk by introducing the composition 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.I think by doing that, he ma y give the reader a sense that he thinks only his beliefs are wise and that he does not compliance any other ideas. Throughout the article, Levin continues to carry the attitude of a know it all. Levin says Opponents of the death penalty, for example are forever insisting that executing a murderer will not bring back his victim. (201). In case you didnt notice, he says 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.Not only does his statement risk offending the death penalty opponents, it can also continue to promote his know it all attitude which can surely annoy other people too. Another occasion of his overly aggressive attitude is when he says Once you concede that torture is warrant in extreme cases, you have countenanceted that the decision to use torture is a matter of balancing innocent lives against the means needed to save them. (201). Whether or not i t 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.On the other hand, some people can also 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 cocky 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 simulate the reader. This however is a good thing, because it can make the reader a bit more vulnerable to falling into his emotional example. Ultimately then The Case for Torture is very mixed in effectiveness. The hypothetical cases sound a bit too rare and unlikely 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 place and his hypothetical situations can certainly use some actually documentation of the occurrences he speaks of. I do not believe this essay does the entirety 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 especially because of the attitude. I think this essay leaves a large amount of places for it to be attacked by a person who does not believe in torture.