Rhetorical Analysis: The Case For Torture By Michael Levin

In the face of terrorism, one of the most pressing moral issues is the use of torture as a means of extracting information. The essay, “The Case for Torture”, by philosopher Michael Levin, is a persuasive piece about the morality and validity of torture in dire situations. To persuade readers of his opinion, the writer incorporates a formal vocabulary to elevate his argument, an informal point of view to redirect readers’ moral compass, and an informal and formal tone to strip terrorists of their rights. Throughout his essay, Levin uses a formal vocabulary to give himself authority on speaking about a controversial topic such as torture. As most western democracies, the writer’s audience, outright ban torture and regard it as cruel, Levin

After questioning readers’ morals in an accusative manner, the writer answers his own question by suggesting that the only ethical resolution to the dilemma is to torture the terrorist, leading readers to believe that the writer has values similar as them, as torturing one is far more moral than letting millions die. In the following sentence, Levin uses a first person and second person point of view to persuade readers to let go of bias and listen to his arguments. By using two informal points of view, first person and second person, Levin sets readers up so that by discarding their previous beliefs about torture, they are more susceptible to Levin’s persuasive arguments and ultimately more likely to agree with his opinions. Later on near the end of his essay, Levin uses an informal and formal tone to persuade readers that terrorists renounce their rights and that society should stop them by whatever means necessary, including torture. Distinguishing terrorists from their victims, Levin implicitly states his opinion on the argument of whether terrorists have rights,