Argumentation In Michael Levin's 'The Case For Torture'

1053 Words 5 Pages
Since the article “The Case for Torture” by Michael Levin was published in Newsweek in 1982, it has stirred up many debates regarding the universal use of torture. Levin believes that torture is justifiable in extreme cases such as preventing terrorism to save lives. Levin argues by giving examples of make-believe scenarios in which the only two options given are to either meet the demands of the terrorist or to torture the terrorist so that innocent lives can be spared; however, Levin’s argument is flawed because he never fully defines the boundaries which can be placed on the concept of torture that would ensure that the use of torture is not abused. He believes that the best way to address a problem in which one wants an immediate result …show more content…
Despite being given terms of negotiation by the terrorists, they are ignored. Knowing that hundreds of lives that are on that plane can be saved by following negotiations that Levin claims to have been made are neglected, this proves that saving the lives of the passengers is not the main priority but punishing the terrorists through torture is. Another solution that Levin fails to address is that, an emergency landing could take place and all the passengers could be evacuated so nobody gets hurt. Levin states that “only [the terrorist] alone can disarm [the bomb],” this is not completely true there are people dedicated to disarming bombs called the bomb squad. They would be called on the scene immediately. It may be argued that what if the plane has already taken off. Then how is the terrorist supposed to disarm it? He can’t magically fly to the plane and if he is going to give instructions over the phone, then so can a member of the bomb squad. Nobody’s life should be taken for granted especially if they are innocent, but there are many alternatives to the same problem which can be easier than trying to torture someone because torturing does not guarantee he will still tell you anything. For all we know the terrorist might actually want to die so he or she was not planning on telling how to disarm it in the first place and was just trying to buy more time so there would be no possible way to save …show more content…
One of the ideas which I agree with the fact that if someone murders someone innocent they should be tortured endlessly instead of just being locked away. The culprit should feel the pain of the victim. I however, see a downfall with this idea too. What if the person who is supposedly convicted is actually not the person who committed the crime? That would make it so someone innocent has to suffer excorticating pain for no reason. There should be a fine line between allowing torture and not allowing torture. There should not be any gray area where a civilian who has not committed the crime can be

Related Documents