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 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.
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 case for torture” happens to be a notable work of Michael Levin, a philosophy professor of City University of New York. In many of his works, Levin has emphasized on philosophical aspects associated with science, logic and language. In the essay “The case for torture” the author tried to examine various circumstances to come to a conclusion that would indicate whether torture can be perceived as “just” in certain cases. In this essay, the author suggested that it is not quite black and white to determine if torture is right and wrong.
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.
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.
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.
According to redress.org torture is the intentional harsh physical or mental pain or else suffering for purposes such as causing fear or intimidation, obtaining information or a declaration of guilt, it is being punished for any reason based on unfairness. (www.redress.org/information-for-survivors/what-is-torture). According to wikipedia.org National Security is an idea that a government, along with its senate, should protect the state and its citizens against all kind of "national" crises through a variety of power projections, such as political power, economic power, military might and diplomacy. (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Profession)
Since the 911 attack in New York, there have been serval reports state the CIA carried enhanced interrogation to torture suspect in black sites. For example, President Obama, as commander in chief, publicly admitted in August 2009 “we tortured some folks”. Because torture can be used as a method to extract information, a BBC survey of 27,000 people in 2006 shows one out of three people considered a degree of torture acceptable if it saved lives. The rest of the paper will discuss the moral justifiability of torture under two ethnical traditions — moral skepticism and consequentialism, along with a practical approach to determine whether the CIA should be condoned to use torture toward terrorists. Moral skepticism includes two variants — amoralism
Using torture as a way to extract evidence is an inhumane way to treat those under accusation. The argument that a confession given under these circumstances is legitimate, is a false claim. This is due to the victim's mindset being compromised from the extreme and extensive methods of torture. Another example of the unacceptable evidence used in court against those accused is the presence of the “devil’s mark”. “The belief was that the devil branded the bodies of witches with symbolic yet concrete corporeal malformations such as marks and growths” (Darr, 361).
Without any proof, a person can be punished for a crime for being accused of it. No excuses were tolerated for receiving a punishment. If a person begged for mercy or forgiveness, the torture methods had the potential of being much worse (Lestikow). Common torture methods were beating, burning, drowning, poisoning, and stretching a criminal 's body.
After finding some torture tactics, it helped me research about the negative effects of torture. In his article, “Torture is a Crime”, Curt Goering listed the negative effects of torture. He argues that torture is illegal, ineffective, immoral and makes those around us unsafe. Curt uses ethos in his piece to back up his main argument. For example, he mentions that in 1984, the UN adopted the Convention against torture and it was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1990. In addition, he informs the reader about a CIA Detention and Interrogation Program which was a study that proved interrogation techniques were not effective. This is important because he uses many statistics and poll results to back up his argument. He also mentions a poll that was
In medieval times, torture was used to punish criminals, deter crime, and gather information. There were many different types of tortures, most of which were brutal and painful. At the time, torture was deemed necessary to maintain order. Laws were harsh and torture was severe, but effective form of punishment. Despite its effectiveness, torture was often an unfair and extremely cruel punishment, and should have been eliminated in all forms. It is disturbing to learn how people were humiliated and maltreated, and how exquisitely brutal were the devices invented to subdue and discipline people.