The Case Against torture
Michael Levin is a Professor of Philosophy at the City College of New York and the Graduate center, City University of New York. He is well known in Libertarian circles and has written much about social issues in the US, especially feminism, race, crime, and other unorthodox issues. In Levin=s essay AThe Case for Torture@, he argues his case that torture should become a legal means of law enforcement. He begins his introduction by saying that torture is no longer accepted and that it only was in use during an earlier era. He follows this up in his thesis by stating that torture is no longer unheard of, but becoming a necessity. Is torture an acceptable means of punishment? Is executing law by way of torture morally right? Levin shows his side and also provides unacceptable reasons for using torture. These exceptions are further used to compel the reader to accept torture, but only to an extent. Subsequent, Levin basically breaks necessary cases of torture into two categories: Death and Idealism. Throughout, Levin provides many reasons for his belief. Levin begins by discussing death in relation to the use of torture. His whole third paragraph provides an excellent hypothetical example of why torturing should become a
A perfect example of his awareness of how torture is only to be used in certain circumstances is quoted directly: AIsn't there a danger of error and abuse? Won't "WE" turn into "THEM?" Questions like these are disingenuous in a world in which terrorists proclaim themselves and perform for television. For instance, there are many people who debate that morality comes into play. @ Levin is very explicit when presenting his ideas in AThe Case for Torture. He uses World War Two as an example: AAmericans would be angered to learn that Roosevelt could have had Hitler killed in 1943, thereby shortening the war and saving millions of lives, but refused on moral grounds. He suggests a wartime tactic which would ultimately, in his and my eyes, be of effective use. In Levin's last paragraphs on death, he wants to indicate that torture should only be used for certain circumstances, as previously listed. By way of survey, Levin took it upon himself to put four mothers in a similar situation: AA terrorist has kidnapped their baby and is withholding its whereabouts. As well as these previously listed reasons and examples, Levin also includes something that every strong literary work requires. After this Levin moves on to draw a point that torture is an extreme, and that there is a fine line when using it. He then says that if a terrorist=s demands absolutely cannot be met, then torture, instead of sacrificing lives, is the way to go. Punishment is addressed to deeds irrevocably past. You can tell by his determined and unyielding tone that Levin is undoubtedly in favor of utilizing torture despite the claim that it is barbaric. " Furthermore, he continues stating ".
Common topics in this essay:
Throughout Levin,
AThe Torture@,
Roosevelt Hitler,
United Constitution,
Ultimately Levin=s,
York Libertarian,
Won't Questions,
Subsequent Levin,
World War,
using torture,
York Graduate,
athe torture@,
death penalty,
utilizing torture,
assassination pre-emptive attack,
levin provides,
levin=s essay,
levin mothers,
pre-emptive attack,
torture instead,
torture morally,
|
Acceptance Essays
