Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the article “The Case for Torture”, Michael Levin argues that the use of torture as a way to save lives is justifiable and necessary. Levin draws a series of cases where torture might be acceptable so as to set certain precedent for the justification of torture in more realistic cases. HoweverLevin illustrates three cases where torture might be justifiable.he describes a terrorist keeping city of millions hostage to an atomic bomb, the second, a terrorist who has implanted remote bombs on a plane and the third, a terrorist who has kidnapped a baby. torture and its consequences have been recorded in countries around of world over a vast span of time, and for a variety of reasons. Levin makes no such attempt to expand his article beyond
Alan Dershowitz begins his article “ Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist Be Tortured” by questioning whether one person can be tortured to save the lives of many others. Dershowitz displays both sides of the argument before shifting the question. Dershowitz asserts that the question is not if torture should be used on a ticking bomb terrorist, rather the question is whether the torture is done openly under a legal framework or secretly and illegally. He then simplifies the conflict to the prioritization of values. While the argument that Dershowitz constructs seems to leave very little room for disagreement, there are ways in which to collapse his entire premise.
In " Torture's Terrible Toll", an essay written by John McCain, the topic of torture is highly discouraged. McCain feels very strongly that it should not be allowed except in only a very high risk and time sensitive situation. McCain makes six claims throughout the rest of the essay. They are that the abuse of prisoners harms the war effort, that prisoner abuse has a terrible toll and threatens our moral standings, that mistreatment of prisoner harms us more than our enemies, that we shouldn't have to compromise our values to get information, that torture is torture whether physical or mental, and that we should not compromise our values and lose the sense of honor that we hold. Basically, he is saying that the United States should show that they are different from other nations.
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.
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. One major eye catching factor of this essay is the repetitive use of words that imply certain stigmas.
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.
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.
2016). Using this ethical framework to argue against torture, one needs to consider the violation of the terrorist’s rights. Utilitarians argue that under a scenario where thousands of people are in danger, the well-being of the larger community is more important than neglecting the rights of a single individual (Krauthammer 2005). The simple idea of taking away a person’s autonomy for the sake of others violates rights ethics. To comprehend the violation upon the victim’s rights, it is important to understand how torture feels, “Brian describes his body as having become an object… pain is the central reality; it dominates experience and expression (Wisnewski 2010, 81).”
Harry Harlow wanted to see how a baby (separated from his mother 12 hours after birth) would react without a real mother present. He took a baby monkey and placed it in a cage with two fake mother. One “mother” was made of wire and the other was made of cloth. Some of the wire “mothers” had a bottle attached to it, and some of the cloth “mothers” had the bottle. Harlow was surprised to find that even when the wire “mother” had the bottle, the baby monkeys were still more attracted to the cloth mother.
Web. 08 Feb. 2016. In this report the author explain that many CIA agents believe that physical torture is not as effective as psychological torture. For example, leaving them naked in front of other people will
Did George Orwell actually portray Winston Smith as a hero in the critically acclaimed novel 1984? According to the Merriam Webster-Dictionary heroism is defined as “heroic conduct especially as exhibited in fulfilling a higher purpose or attaining a noble end.” Acts of heroism are performed all over the world by various individuals in all walks of life. Today, acts of heroism are constantly announced on the news, internet, and by word of mouth.
The novel To Kill a Mockingbird takes us back to a time in America where race relations were at their absolute worst. These were some of the most difficult years for the United States of America, especially in the southern states. Discrimination, segregation and racism were extremely brutal and harsh towards coming from Caucasians toward the African-American race. The main focus of this book was to show how, because of racism, an innocent man was accused of a crime that he did not commit simply because he was African-American.
Many say no torture because they fear it would “corrupt democratic institutions, diminish our moral authority in the world, cause torture to become routine and widespread in society, and arouse worldwide resentment and anger towards us” (688). They would say that torture is not morally permissible, and does not truly work. A non-consequentialist might believe that torture disregards human life, and is disrespectful, no matter what the other has done. They would say that the answer to torture “is an absolutist no - torture is the use of a person merely as a means, a clear instance of a lack of respect for a human being. Torture is therefore always wrong” (687).
In Defense of Torture “Because It Is Wrong:” A Meditation on Torture Rules Should Govern Torture, Dershowitz Says What ethical arguments are being made? Torture is okay to use. Torture is wrong. Torture should be okay in some circumstances