Michael Levin's Argument Against Torture
“It should not be Permissible to Torture Suspected Terrorists to Gather Information” by Vincent Iacopino and “The Case for Torture” by Michael Levin both use different techniques to defend their stance against torture. However, both authors use deductive reasoning to defend their opinion on torture and both authors have similarities through out their essays and use some of the same examples to explain their argument. Both essays make a strong argument against torture but I feel Michael Levin’s essay “The Case for Torture” is stronger in comparison to Vincent Iacopino’s “It should not be Permissible to Torture Suspected Terrorists to Gather Information”. Michael Levin has a stronger persuasive argument and Vincent Iacopino’s essay is weak in reasoning.
…show more content…
In “It should not be Permissible to Torture Suspected Terrorists to Gather Information”, Vincent Iacopino is against torture and mainly uses the persuasion method of answering the opposition, and some referring to an authority. Iacopino uses the ticking time bomb scenario to show how unrealistic it is to use that as a defense to justify torture. When Iacopino says “labeling torture as a ‘stress and duress’ interrogation technique does not alter the brutality that it represents”, he shows that just because you change the name from torture to stress and duress it doesn’t change to severity of it and it doesn’t make it any more justifiable. He also states that “torture does not make any one person or society safer or more secure. States that torture undermine their authority and legitimacy.” With this statement he explains that a country that tortures is going against a global union against torture, that that country is making itself look barbaric and unnatural. All of these statements are examples of using the answering the opposition persuasion technique. This is effective because these are common arguments people can use when they are trying to defend the idea that torture can be acceptable. Iacopino states that “under the U.N. Convention Against Torture, the United States is obligated to prohibit torture, ensure prompt and impartial investigations and prosecute perpetrators. Additionally, on countless occasions the State Department’s Country Report on Human Rights Practices has criticized governments that torture, in some cases the same practices the U.S. is now accused of committing in its ‘war on terrorism’”. This is also effective because he is showing that other countries are also trying to prohibit torture, and that torture is a world wide problem and is not only limited to the United States showing his readers that torture is a bigger problem then they may think. Therefore his argument can be backed by the globe, not only one country, and the country that does participate in torture can and will be looked down upon by most of the worlds governments. Although Iacopino makes a good argument and defense of his opinion I don’t think his argument it weak in comparison to Michael Levin’s essay “The Case for Torture”. In “The Case for Torture”, Michael Levin is for the use of torture in some situations.
Levin also mainly uses the persuasion method of answering the opposition but he uses more examples than Iacopino does. Levin begins his essay by stating that “it is generally assumed that torture is impermissible, a throwback to a more brutal age” he also questions the oppositions and answers to defend his opinion when he states “torturing the terrorist is unconstitutional? Probably. But millions of lives surely outweigh constitutionality”. This is effective because he shows that he is aware of the questions of the opposition but feels strong enough that torture can be justified to go against the majority of people who think torture is immoral and can never be used, he uses this to show that he has a good enough argument to go against what most people think or feel. He also states “if you caught the terrorist, could you sleep nights knowing that millions died because you couldn’t bring yourself to apply to electrodes?” he uses this example to make it personal, to show people that torture can be used in some situations. By making it personal he makes people think about the idea that torture can be used if it is
necessary. Although both authors use similar techniques in order to defend their opinion, I feel that in “The Case for Torture” by Michael Levin, his opinion and defense is stronger than in “It should not be Permissible to Torture Suspected Terrorists to Gather Information” by Vincent Iacopino. Levin’s defense of his opinion is supported stronger and he uses real life evidence to defend himself. In his essay Levin also answers the opposition more often giving us, the audience, better sense that he knows what he is talking about, and he is confident enough to state a defense to his opposition. Although his essay includes the “either or” fallacy when he also uses the ticking time bomb example, he explains further that is that situation was made more realistic the answers would stay the same, that torture can be used in some situations. He also uses this example in a different way than Iacopino does, Levin shows the reality in this situation to show that when it is necessary people will turn to torture in order to save a life of a loved one or even an innocent person. Levin also shows that when it comes to saving peoples lives, in most cases, numbers don’t matter. “How can we tell 300, or 100, or 10 people who never asked to be put in danger, ‘I’m sorry, you’ll have to die in agony, we just couldn’t brig ourselves to…..”. This example shows that sometimes it is moral and justified to use torture if it is necessary to save innocent lives. “It should not be Permissible to Torture Suspected Terrorists to Gather Information” by Vincent Iacopino and “The Case for Torture” by Michael Levin both use different techniques to defend their stance against torture. Both authors use a similar way to defend their opinion and even use some of the same examples. However, Michael Levin’s essay has a stronger argument and is a stronger persuasive opinion on torture.
In “It should not be Permissible to Torture Suspected Terrorists to Gather Information”, Vincent Iacopino is against torture and mainly uses the persuasion method of answering the opposition, and some referring to an authority. Iacopino uses the ticking time bomb scenario to show how unrealistic it is to use that as a defense to justify torture. When Iacopino says “labeling torture as a ‘stress and duress’ interrogation technique does not alter the brutality that it represents”, he shows that just because you change the name from torture to stress and duress it doesn’t change to severity of it and it doesn’t make it any more justifiable. He also states that “torture does not make any one person or society safer or more secure. States that torture undermine their authority and legitimacy.” With this statement he explains that a country that tortures is going against a global union against torture, that that country is making itself look barbaric and unnatural. All of these statements are examples of using the answering the opposition persuasion technique. This is effective because these are common arguments people can use when they are trying to defend the idea that torture can be acceptable. Iacopino states that “under the U.N. Convention Against Torture, the United States is obligated to prohibit torture, ensure prompt and impartial investigations and prosecute perpetrators. Additionally, on countless occasions the State Department’s Country Report on Human Rights Practices has criticized governments that torture, in some cases the same practices the U.S. is now accused of committing in its ‘war on terrorism’”. This is also effective because he is showing that other countries are also trying to prohibit torture, and that torture is a world wide problem and is not only limited to the United States showing his readers that torture is a bigger problem then they may think. Therefore his argument can be backed by the globe, not only one country, and the country that does participate in torture can and will be looked down upon by most of the worlds governments. Although Iacopino makes a good argument and defense of his opinion I don’t think his argument it weak in comparison to Michael Levin’s essay “The Case for Torture”. In “The Case for Torture”, Michael Levin is for the use of torture in some situations.
Levin also mainly uses the persuasion method of answering the opposition but he uses more examples than Iacopino does. Levin begins his essay by stating that “it is generally assumed that torture is impermissible, a throwback to a more brutal age” he also questions the oppositions and answers to defend his opinion when he states “torturing the terrorist is unconstitutional? Probably. But millions of lives surely outweigh constitutionality”. This is effective because he shows that he is aware of the questions of the opposition but feels strong enough that torture can be justified to go against the majority of people who think torture is immoral and can never be used, he uses this to show that he has a good enough argument to go against what most people think or feel. He also states “if you caught the terrorist, could you sleep nights knowing that millions died because you couldn’t bring yourself to apply to electrodes?” he uses this example to make it personal, to show people that torture can be used in some situations. By making it personal he makes people think about the idea that torture can be used if it is
necessary. Although both authors use similar techniques in order to defend their opinion, I feel that in “The Case for Torture” by Michael Levin, his opinion and defense is stronger than in “It should not be Permissible to Torture Suspected Terrorists to Gather Information” by Vincent Iacopino. Levin’s defense of his opinion is supported stronger and he uses real life evidence to defend himself. In his essay Levin also answers the opposition more often giving us, the audience, better sense that he knows what he is talking about, and he is confident enough to state a defense to his opposition. Although his essay includes the “either or” fallacy when he also uses the ticking time bomb example, he explains further that is that situation was made more realistic the answers would stay the same, that torture can be used in some situations. He also uses this example in a different way than Iacopino does, Levin shows the reality in this situation to show that when it is necessary people will turn to torture in order to save a life of a loved one or even an innocent person. Levin also shows that when it comes to saving peoples lives, in most cases, numbers don’t matter. “How can we tell 300, or 100, or 10 people who never asked to be put in danger, ‘I’m sorry, you’ll have to die in agony, we just couldn’t brig ourselves to…..”. This example shows that sometimes it is moral and justified to use torture if it is necessary to save innocent lives. “It should not be Permissible to Torture Suspected Terrorists to Gather Information” by Vincent Iacopino and “The Case for Torture” by Michael Levin both use different techniques to defend their stance against torture. Both authors use a similar way to defend their opinion and even use some of the same examples. However, Michael Levin’s essay has a stronger argument and is a stronger persuasive opinion on torture.