Michael Levin Torture Summary

Will torture ever be acceptable? If there is a critical risk of loss of innocent lives, should torture be a way of saving them? Michael Levin conveys this question to our consideration in a pursuit to sway our viewpoint in his field of view. In this thoroughly written essay, Levin uses various illustrations to show how torture should be considered and would benefit us in the future. In Levin’s first example, he describes a situation where an atomic bomb’s position is unknown and threatens the lives of millions of Manhattan residents. he then proceeds with the topic of torture being permittable in this scenario and states that there are no grounds where this wouldn't be the preferred choice. Indeed, there should be line that we shouldn’t

Levin depicts a plane heist in which if demands are not met, 300 lives will be lost due to an explosion. In this scheme, only the terrorist can defuse the bomb, and his requests are not able to be met. Levin expresses that we must do anything, even torture, to spare the lives of the innocent who have nothing to do with the calamity that they are now a part of. By using smaller numbers human brains can comprehend it better and start to fully understand the severity of the situation. When you see the number 1 million you might not see them as individuals, but as the number becomes smaller and more sensible, you start noticing the

It was a theoretical circumstance in which a terrorist has kidnapped a newborn child, and the only way for the child to return to his or her mother is through torture. Levin asked four mothers and every one of the four mothers said they would comply with torturing the terrorist to rescue their child. I see this as an unfair survey. A mother’s love is unparalleled to any other feeling. A mother will do literally anything to save her child, no matter the circumstances. You see this consistently in murder cases, a person is convicted and proven guilty of murder, without fail the mother will fight for her son’s innocence no matter how much evidence is thrown at her. Levin then clarifies that he is not defending torture as a form of punishment, but as a deterrent for future atrocities. Levin writes one of the opposition's arguments that says, “Such practices disregard the rights of the individual” (2), and then combats it by saying that since the life of an individual is important, it is important to protect those rights from terrorists. When someone murders, they have forfeit their humanity and should no longer be given the same rights as humans. If a terrorist is planning on taking lives, they should be given the same treatment as murderers and no longer be considered