Argument Analysis: The Case For Torture By Michael Levin

If given the chance to save hundreds from a terrorist attack and all one had to do was carry out torture, would they do it? What if a young child was kidnapped and the police wanted permission to torture the kidnapper, would permission be granted? In “The Case for Torture” by Michael Levin, he explains that torture is sometimes necessary. I agree that torture could be necessary depending on the situation at hand. Levin explains that torture can be morally mandatory, justified, and can prevent future evils. “There are situations in which torture is not merely permissible but morally mandatory” (Levin 605). Levin’s quote states that torture could be morally mandatory depending on the situation. If one was in a situation where torturing one terrorist in order to save 500 people was needed, would they do it? Morals come into play, and disregarding those morals could have major consequences. If one was to decide to not perform the torturous act, innocent lives would be lost. I agree with Levin’s moral mandate argument. I personally would choose to torture one person if there were many innocent lives at risk. Morals are an important factor in the decisions people

Michael Levin argues that torture is a necessity at times. How a situation should be played out depends on the factors and the risks of the situation. Would torturing a kidnapper be okay if they kidnaped a newborn child? Would someone use torture to save 250 children from a school shooter? I believe that Levin was mostly persuasive in his argument and he made me think about what I would do in a situation that involved a terrorist. The only problem with his argument is that he was not using realistic examples in his writing. Levin states that torture can be morally mandatory, justified, and can prevent future evils. I still agree that torture could be necessary if truly needed, but I believe he could have made a better argument for his position on the