Case For Torture

In the article, The Case for Torture, Michael Levin sheds light on the complexity of using torture. The author argues that the use of torture is sometimes necessary. He lays out various situations in which torture may be needed and highlights arguments in support of torture. I agree with Michael Levin’s theory that torture is sometimes justified because it is sometimes morally obligatory, it helps to maintain order, and it prevents evils that may happen in the future.
The first reason I agree with Michael Levin’s theory that torture is sometimes vindicated is because morals demand it. Torture may help to save lives. If the use of an unpleasant method will save more lives, it is foolish to not save those lives. Levin offers the example of a situation involving a bomb going off in a certain amount of time that would risk the lives of millions. If authorities refuse to take extreme measures such as torture to gain information necessary to save lives, they are failing to deliver the moral duty of protecting
lives. Torture is morally mandatory because it involves balancing lives that will be lost versus the life of the terrorist. Morals require authorities to save the lives of as many people as possible. Therefore, if it comes to saving millions of innocent peoples’ lives or inflicting torture on someone guilty of harming these lives, authorities are compelled by morals to save the innocent lives. Torture is morally compulsory in certain instances because it serves as a tool to save more lives, but there are also other reasons why torture is sometimes necessary.

Another reason, I agree that torture is sometimes justified is because it helps to maintain order.
Torture aids in discouraging an individual from committing evil acts. The techniques involved in torture may dissuade an individual from harming others, therefore, upholding order in society. Order is also maintained through the terrorist facing repercussions to try to combat his evil act. The terrorist makes the decision to harm innocent people, but the victims did not want to be a part of this. Therefore, order is upheld because a clear message is sent through torture that these evil acts will not be tolerated. Torture also maintains order by showing that when people choose to harm others, they are taking inherent risks. Since people who commit these acts know that risks are built in, methods such as torture may be used by authorities to help maintain control over society. Besides, the need for torture to maintain order, it is also necessary for another
reason.
The final reason why I agree that torture is sometimes justified is it prevents evils that may happen in the future. It may assist in squelching evil because it may cause people to not commit acts that harm others, for fear, that they may be subjected to torture. It also prevents evil that may happen in the future by the tactics it uses. The tactics invoked during torture may cause a person to break under the pressure, and release information that can be used to save other peoples’ lives. The example that Michael Levin uses of the bomb going off and killing millions of people can be used to demonstrate how torture may prevent future evils. If the person is caught before the bomb exploded, but refuses to tell where the bomb is, torture may help to gain this information. Though the person initially refuses to release this information, he may change his mind when the techniques used in torture are used on him.
In conclusion, I believe that Michael Levin is correct in his theory that torture is justified in certain circumstances. While torture should not be used often, it may be necessary in some instances. I believe that torture is justified sometimes because it is morally obligatory, it preserves law and order, and may cease evils that will happen in the future.