The purpose of torture is terror, not information the torture is supposedly trying to gain. You might consider whether you like his argument or find it persuasive. According to an informal poll he conducted. Paralysis in the face of evil is the greater danger. All other comments are off-topic and will be removed.
Let's assume that torture was applied on him to discover more plots that he had initiated. He is is definitly showing a position and he also wants people to start thinking about the subject of toruring. Another way to help make the question or issue clear is to ask what is at stake. All four mothers said they would approve of it. Most of the hypothetical cases the Levin gave turned out that it actaully holds some truth to it and it actually happened. If he agreed to inflict pain on others he is saying that if he gets caught then that pain can be infliceted on him.
It is pretty clearly focused on the rights of people who have come under the power of the police, and on what the police should by policy be allowed to do. The format of the introduction of Levin's essay is somewhat unusual. This assassination of Hitler could have lead to the downfall of the the Third Reich but it still had plenty of momentum before it stopped. Is any police desk sergeant authorized to decide when and which methods to use? Whereas, the guards were given no specific training on how to be a guard so that they can make up their own set of rules. Do we need to change the law? Now that it is justifiable to put him to death, inflicting pain on him should be deemed reasonable by all means; not to mention that there is this underlying motive to safeguard the lives of many more that are innocent. Torture of any kind is a barbarity best left to the dark ages.
He used paragraph 4 to move onto the logical trap he places at the beginning of the fifth paragraph. Nor do you measure the quality of a piece of writing by it not containing any fallacies. The suspect's demands cannot be met. Jefferson and Madison were not starry-eyed romantics but instead had the cynical belief that people with power go bad. Levin's argument is similar to Sam Harris' argument for torture which is also pro, but I find it more pragmatic:. But overall, I really liked your essay and it helped me open up some new thoughts.
Take a look at this argument: Constitution seeks to protect the interest of one's rights. He also predicts that someday soon many lives will be threatened and torture will be the only way to save them. It changes the atmosphere around the issue, makes it seem a little less sanitary, if we think of particular forms of torture, and ask whether Levin would endorse them if they are more effective than electrodes they often are--torturers in North Korea found that electrodes are not very effective, though the fear of electrodes may be : breaking off teeth with pliers, applying lit cigarettes to hands and mouth, bamboo shoots under the fingernails, cattle prods to the genitals, or even the rack. Whether or not it makes sense, he is clearly making an assumption that we admit to something by agreeing on another thing. It is effective for Levin to introduce Hitler as an example of an individual who killed many innocent people. Levin would love to see society change its negative views on torture so that, under certain circumstances, torture would be permissible. Sometimes drastic measures have to be taken to protect thousands or even millions of innocent lives.
Levin would love to see society change its negative views on torture so that, under certain circumstances, torture would be permissible. Finally, he addresses that the implications that accepting torture into western culture will emit to the rest of the world are nonexistent and the democracy will not lose its way. Nor do you measure the quality of a piece of writing by it not containing any fallacies. People usually do not want to feel guilty, therefore they would chose to torture the terrorists. Torture is an ancient science, maybe more ancient than logic, and there have been devoted researchers, ingenious experiments, and much learned over the years.
If the issue is clear, then we can go on with our other steps to complete a description. Although it is disturbing to most of us, these actions still occur in our society today, as many believe that homosexuality is abnormal and disgraceful. So, by only giving his opinion and showing that you have to choose between inncoent lives or torturing this person in order to ballance the extreme means. In the informal poll of the four anonymous mothers, it is apparent that Levin appealed to the fears and emotions of the parents in question. In his given example, he argues that the mass murder of millions of innocent people by a terrorist justifies the use of torture to stop such an extreme barbaric act. If he does not give information on a pending 2nd attack or any other information our government feels the need to know, torture is a liable option.
Levin would love to see society change its negative views on torture so that, under certain circumstances, torture would be permissible. Torturing the terroists if successful and there is enough time to torture someone there is the chance the lives would be saved. In addition, because this article was published in Newsweek, it was not intended to be a peer-edited academic writing. Throughout this article, Levin discusses many different reasons that torture should be used. But if there is still some uncertainty about why people disagree or what the disagreement involves, then we must immediately slow down and work through some more questions which are meant to help in clarifying issues.