Michael Levin's 5 Arguments Against Torture

Torture is a controversial issue and extremely polarizing within the evangelical community. One side says that torture is never justified, while the other side says that torture is morally justified under certain straining circumstances. David P. Gushee takes the former ideology and argues in his 5 REASONS TORTURE IS ALWAYS WRONG that torture is never morally justified. Gushee forms a fairly solid argument that advocated his position with his use of historical scenarios, biblical evidence, and commonly shared beliefs, however, the downfall of the core of his argument consequently precipitates from his usage of false parallelism. In contrast, Michael Levin advocates in favor of the latter ideology. He does not argue that torture should be used casually, rather his argument stems from the premise that nations should not be so quick to ban torture in every single circumstance. His primary rhetorical strategy is to use hypothetical extremes to prove his point, in addition, he also appeals to emotion to evoke a sense towards Utilitarianism to justify torture in certain cases. His primary downfall in his argument was that many of his hypothetical have yet to be seen in real life, in light of this, it may delegitimize his argument in certain people’s minds. Gushee’s argument was particularly effective because of his employment of historical …show more content…
He does not argue that torture should be used casually, rather his argument stems from the premise that nations should not be so quick to ban torture in every single circumstance. His primary rhetorical strategy is to use hypothetical extremes to prove his point, in addition, he also appeals to emotion to evoke a sense towards Utilitarianism to justify torture in certain cases. His primary downfall in his argument was that many of his hypothetical have yet to be seen in real life, in light of this, it may delegitimize his argument in certain people’s