Levin’s hypothetical leads to the illogical “A Case For Torture” is an essay written by Michael Levin in which he tries to make a compelling case for the use of torture as a punishment during certain situations in the United States. One of the ways Levin tries to logically prove his argument is by citing different real life situations; some examples are situations that actually occurred, but most are hypothetical situations. The use of hypothetical situations is meant to help direct the reader to understand the applications of Levin’s policy on torture. With that, Levin is not convincing in his argument as he relies too heavily on the hypothetical. Michael Levin in “A Case For Torture” is not logically convincing in his discussion as to why
…show more content…
He states that one of the most compelling arguments against the use of torture is that, “such practices disregard the rights of the individual” (690). He then counteracts that claim with the idea that, “If life is so valuable that it must never be taken, the lives of the innocents must be saved even at the price of hurting one who endangers them” (690). Levin is basically claiming that although he sees the importance in human rights, he feels like valuing one life over potentially saving hundreds or millions of lives is much more of a greater feat and with that torture is justified. He uses the hypothetical situation, which is rooted in reality, that if Roosevelt would have killed Adolf Hitler when he had a chance in 1943 then he would have saved millions of people who were impacted during WWII and The Holocaust. He says that in this instance, torture and killing Hitler would have been the most effective outcome. Even if in this example torture would have been an effective way of dealing with Hitler and preventing the massacre that occurred, the way Levin inserts this hypothetical into the text is weak. The reason it is weak is because it lacks valuable pieces of information. For instance, the pretenses in which the situation occurred are not included in the text. The different circumstances of the situation are vital to fully coming to a conclusion on if further action taken in terms of Hitler would have been justified. The other thing that is not assessed is the idea that the outcome of the situation, if Roosevelt decided to kill Hitler, may have not been one that would have prevented the terror that ensued. Another member of the Nazi party may have stepped up and taken Hitler’s reigns. The path the world went down may have been the same, but the means to get there may have differed slightly. So overall, in terms of this hypothetical
He states that one of the most compelling arguments against the use of torture is that, “such practices disregard the rights of the individual” (690). He then counteracts that claim with the idea that, “If life is so valuable that it must never be taken, the lives of the innocents must be saved even at the price of hurting one who endangers them” (690). Levin is basically claiming that although he sees the importance in human rights, he feels like valuing one life over potentially saving hundreds or millions of lives is much more of a greater feat and with that torture is justified. He uses the hypothetical situation, which is rooted in reality, that if Roosevelt would have killed Adolf Hitler when he had a chance in 1943 then he would have saved millions of people who were impacted during WWII and The Holocaust. He says that in this instance, torture and killing Hitler would have been the most effective outcome. Even if in this example torture would have been an effective way of dealing with Hitler and preventing the massacre that occurred, the way Levin inserts this hypothetical into the text is weak. The reason it is weak is because it lacks valuable pieces of information. For instance, the pretenses in which the situation occurred are not included in the text. The different circumstances of the situation are vital to fully coming to a conclusion on if further action taken in terms of Hitler would have been justified. The other thing that is not assessed is the idea that the outcome of the situation, if Roosevelt decided to kill Hitler, may have not been one that would have prevented the terror that ensued. Another member of the Nazi party may have stepped up and taken Hitler’s reigns. The path the world went down may have been the same, but the means to get there may have differed slightly. So overall, in terms of this hypothetical