Kantian Duty-Based Virtue Analysis

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.

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.

A man by the name of Henry Shue counters this argument by basically saying that killing someone in combat may be do them greater harm than torturing them, but killing someone could remove the possible other harm that

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 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

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).”

In medieval times, torture was used to punish criminals, deter crime, and gather information. There were many different types of tortures, most of which were brutal and painful. At the time, torture was deemed necessary to maintain order. Laws were harsh and torture was severe, but effective form of punishment. Despite its effectiveness, torture was often an unfair and extremely cruel punishment, and should have been eliminated in all forms.

Many people use torture to mess with people's mind and to use it against them. They force people to confess and use it to their advantage against people. Orwell states, “A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people ... turning one even against one's will like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic” (Orwell 11). In the book, 1984 Big Brother used torture to their advantage to gain power. In many countries, they do the same thing and many people believe this is not the right thing to do.

In the Ethical Life, by Russ Shafer-Landau, chapters written by Michael Walzer and Alan Dershowitz express their knowledge and opinions on the topics of terrorism and torture. Is it possible to justify and defend such acts? In the chapter “Terrorism: A Critique of Excuses”, author Michael Walzer shuts down four excuses that attempt to justify terrorism. In the chapter, “Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist Be Tortured?”, Alan Dershowitz defends his theory that it is necessary to torture a terrorist if that means saving the lives of innocent people while protecting their civil liberties and human rights at the same time. Terrorism can never be moral because it violates all “excuses” and torture is an acceptable tactic to save lives.

In the reading “The Case for Torture” written by Michael Levin, and published on the June 7th, 1982 edition of Newsweek. Levin argues in favor of torture as an acceptable way of obtaining information when innocent lives are at stake. Outlining three separate scenarios devised to make the reader reconsider the stance on torturer in order to protect the interest of those in the western area. The strength of this text is that the absence of reasoning does not strike the reader; he is overcome by Levin’s ability to break ethical decisions down to black and white. Levin begins with describing torture as “morally mandatory”.

Applebaum has plenty of evidence to back up her claim that physical torture is not effective, and there are many other ways to obtain information. While the fear-encouraging and questioning elements are potent to many who are afraid of terror committed against them, but when the overwhelming sentiment of Levin’s argument is being compared to the logic and ethical points of Applebaum it is clear to see the superiority of her argument. Although Levin would advocate for physical torture in extreme situations, one must expect extreme consequences. Physical torture is rarely effective, violates rights, and damages a whole nation’s credibility. This is why physical torture should not be

In “The Case for Torture,” Michael Levin’s argument points out his beliefs in thinking that torture is justified in most cases. His statements throughout the article are pointed to more of a one sided approach in saying that it is barbaric, but is really supporting in the ways torture can be useful. To people that would disagree with the author’s points in the argument, Levin provides a good outlet to both sides that are pro-torture and non-torture, but, he goes more into thinking that it is unwise. To Levin’s understanding torture can only be used to save innocent people’s lives. His article has many provocative statements that make you question whether or not torture is a good way to find out about lifesaving intel or just to be used for

Terroristic Torture Argument Terrorism in America is a sophisticated problem in the United States that affects everyone in some form. To help prevent terrorism from being an intense problem and to protect the people within the country, terroristic torture has been controversial topic. Terroristic torture can save lives and prevent future acts of terrorism within America. Terroristic torture can be used carefully with specialized technics to help protect the American people of future terroristic attacks that may cause them to get injured or even killed.

The author believes that the thoughts of enlightened societies are unwise and ascertains that there are situations whereby torture becomes morally mandatory in dealing with terrorists.