Many have said that they would want nonlethal torture to be used in such cases but “did not want torture to be officially recognized by our legal system.” Similar statements have posited that while “torture might be necessary in a given situation it could never be right.” This approach, that of keeping torture off-the-books, is in direct conflict with the necessity for accountability and transparency in a democracy. A democracy cannot work if the public is kept in the dark. The public must know what is going on in order to approve or disapprove.
Mahatma Gandhi, the preeminent leader of the Indian independence movement states “You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind.” This is important because torture is brutal on the body and mind. The article “Torture’s Terrible Toll” by John McCain is more convincing then the article “The Case for Torture” by Michael Levin because McCain provides more logical reasoning, he adds his own personal experience of being a captured prisoner during the Vietnam War, and he creates an emotional bond with people around the world. Through more logical reasoning McCain Argument is more valid than Levin.
It seamlessly effects the reader by asking a question that asks to think deeper than just the surface of the main topic at hand: lowering the bar for individual students. In addition to the previous article, Torture Might Work, also includes a number of pathos examples. One in particular is, “Beg pardon, but we have been asking the wrong question. What matters is not whether torture works. What matters is whether torture is right.”
The Case for Torture Wins Torture is it morally acceptable? Many have debated this argument but I would like to bring up two main conflicting view points from Michael Levin, and Marzieh Ghisai. Michael Levin is a Jewish law professor who wrote The Case for Torture where he advocates where torture is acceptable in some circumstances.
In order to better understand how torture is used in the Salem Witch Trials, it is necessary to examine the usage of torture and interrogation in the modern
My opposition to torture fall under the beliefs of the absolutist Kant, who states that no matter what the circumstance is, something that is wrong will always be wrong (Boothe 2006, 12). Therefore, concerning the issue of torture, in this world or any other world, torture is immoral. In this paper, I will employ the ethical frameworks of virtue, rights, and fairness to argue against torture when viewed from the perspective of the victim, the torturer, and any outside source. Furthermore, I will dismantle the ticking-bomb scenario by deducing the incapability to achieve full certainty deeming these scenarios unrealistic.
It is disturbing to learn how people were humiliated and maltreated, and how exquisitely brutal were the devices invented to subdue and discipline people. The reason torture was commonly accepted during the Middle Ages was the lack of police or law enforcement. It was believed that to prevent crime,
In this article the author asks the question as to whether torture is a viable source in getting information. Since there is other moral ways of getting information. Some of these methods have shown to be more efficient. They also leave the victim’s mind intact. Janoff-Bulman, Ronnie.
According to psychologist Steven Reisner, physical torture affects the brain, but “psychological torture undermines the very ability to think, and it doesn’t leave any marks.” “Slavery” is a word that many people immediately cringe to when the seven letters are processed through their brains. This epoch in America’s history is one that this nation wishes it could forget, but this obviously cannot be done. The physical pain and mental suffering that slaves went through can never again be paralleled. This paper will mainly discuss the topic of psychological and physical torture that took place during the slavery era in the United States of America.
While analyzing “The Torture Myth” and “The Case for Torture”, it is very clear to see the type of rhetorical appeals used to persuade the audience. Anne Applebaum, the writer of “The Torture Myth” --in context of the decision of electing a new Attorney General--would argue that torture is very seldomly effective, violates a person’s rights, and should be outlawed due to the irrational need upon which physical torture is used. On the other hand, Michael Levin strongly argues that physical torture is crucial to solving every imminent danger to civilians. Levin claims that if you don’t physically torture someone, you are being weak and want to allow innocent people to die over something that could have been simply done.
In Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture”, he uses many cases of emotional appeal to persuade the reader that torture is necessary in extreme cases. There are many terms/statements that stick with the reader throughout the essay so that they will have more attachment to what is being said. Levin is particularly leaning to an audience based in the United States because he uses an allusion to reference an event that happened within the states and will better relate to the people that were impacted by it. The emotional appeals used in this essay are used for the purpose of persuading the reader to agree that in extreme instances torture is necessary and the United States should begin considering it as a tactic for future cases of extremity. One major eye catching factor of this essay is the repetitive use of words that imply certain stigmas.
After days of reading passage after passage and watching every video I was able to come across that spoke about the War on Terror, I realized how separated and chaotic this world is. Therefore the solution that I think is best is the one where the United States would help stabilize and build a stronger relationship with the Middle East to combat terrorism by creating and supporting a variety of organizations which will make the U.S. as long-term investments against terrorism. The United States is constantly losing money due to all of the investments we make going towards the military is we would form some kind of alliance with the MIddle East there wouldn 't be so much need of our military fighting over there. We not only be saving money but
In Michael Levin's The Case for Torture, Levin provides an argument in which he discusses the significance of inflicting torture to perpetrators as a way of punishment. In his argument, he dispenses a critical approach into what he believes justifies torture in certain situations. Torture is assumed to be banned in our culture and the thought of it takes society back to the brutal ages. He argues that societies that are enlightened reject torture and the authoritative figure that engage in its application risk the displeasure of the United States. In his perspective, he provides instances in which wrongdoers put the lives of innocent people at risk and discusses the aspect of death and idealism.
The discussion of torture is a touchy one in regards to its place in the justice system. People struggle to find a place for it between what is morally right and what is realistically necessary. In the state that the world is in today, due to frequent terror attacks, the topic is more crucial and controversial than ever before. In Michael Levin’s “A Case for Torture”, he presents his beliefs on how accommodations can be made for torture in order to uphold the safety and well-being of the world. Levin’s main argument explains that in order to maintain morals, the use of torture must be evaluated on a case-to-case basis.
Torture, though it may never have a solid answer, is at times justified through morals or thought to be necessary. As a form of capital punishment, persecution is wrong because each human being not only has rights, but is unique and precious. In the perspective that cruelty happening to save the lives of other human beings, the question of whether torture is acceptable then is raised. The topic of torture can be seen in many various perspectives, but four of those include utilitarianism, Kantian duty-based ethics, virtue ethics, and Christian-principle based ethics.
