Michael Levin's The Case For Torture
We all have heard stories about a terrorist attack, plane hijacking, kidnapping and many other barbaric acts conducted by many known and unknown groups every now and then. As a result of these types of activities tens of thousands of innocent lives have been lost which also left many injured. The obvious question after this would be if there was anything that could have been done to prevent these activities and, possibly save those lives. In “The Case for Torture” Michael Levin is focusing on torture as a possible solution. He is claiming the use of torture not as a punishment but, an acceptable measure for preventing future evil and, acquiring valuable information in extreme situations. It is because millions of innocent lives that are in danger will outweigh the maximum excruciating possible pain for a person convicted guilty. In all of his examples he is showing torture as the only possible
…show more content…
solution to escape from death. I think it is because the decision about torture is usually made in the heat of the moment and short time because there is no time to think or go through an official process. I believe torture is also something officials are obliged to do when they run out of options in most cases. It should not be the first thing someone would do to get an answer. This issue is controversial because torture does not guarantee anything but, it is always better than doing nothing and let something evil happen. Even though torture might not always provide an answer it is more likely that torture might lead to something unknown which will be crucial in preventing barbaric activities.
Levin’s examples to support his claims are mostly based on suppositions rather than facts and evidences but, it does not mean that such situations will never occur.
Something identical might not occur but, something similar where something bad is going to happen that relates to accepting torture might occur. In the first example Levin supposes a terrorist has hidden an atomic bomb on Manhattan and gets caught before its detonation. He is asking the readers what they would do in such a situation in terms of accepting or denying torture as a possible measure to locate the bomb and defuse it. Based on my moral principles I personally would deny it but, what about those millions of innocent people who are about to die. There is no point in releasing the terrorist nor is he politely going to tell us where exactly the bomb is located. Thinking about those million lives one might be obliged to accept torture rather than worrying about the aftermath. There is always a slight chance that the bomb might get located or lead to something related to the bomb officials were unaware
about.
solution to escape from death. I think it is because the decision about torture is usually made in the heat of the moment and short time because there is no time to think or go through an official process. I believe torture is also something officials are obliged to do when they run out of options in most cases. It should not be the first thing someone would do to get an answer. This issue is controversial because torture does not guarantee anything but, it is always better than doing nothing and let something evil happen. Even though torture might not always provide an answer it is more likely that torture might lead to something unknown which will be crucial in preventing barbaric activities.
Levin’s examples to support his claims are mostly based on suppositions rather than facts and evidences but, it does not mean that such situations will never occur.
Something identical might not occur but, something similar where something bad is going to happen that relates to accepting torture might occur. In the first example Levin supposes a terrorist has hidden an atomic bomb on Manhattan and gets caught before its detonation. He is asking the readers what they would do in such a situation in terms of accepting or denying torture as a possible measure to locate the bomb and defuse it. Based on my moral principles I personally would deny it but, what about those millions of innocent people who are about to die. There is no point in releasing the terrorist nor is he politely going to tell us where exactly the bomb is located. Thinking about those million lives one might be obliged to accept torture rather than worrying about the aftermath. There is always a slight chance that the bomb might get located or lead to something related to the bomb officials were unaware
about.