On June 8, 1991, at around 8:20 a. How exactly is the bomb going to be defused? Let's assume that torture was applied on him to discover more plots that he had initiated. Appeal to emotion, logic fallacies and the lack of hard evidences are some of the most common themes for our essays. Levin uses three main points to convince readers why torture should be used. He goes on to state that although he does not condone the use of torture as a means of punishment he does however consider it a logical solution to drawing terrorist plots out.
The article starts off with a very brief description of how he believes society views the subject of torture as a negative thing. Finally he states who gets to receive the torturing and briefly describes what the outcome may be. In my opinion, they are clearly work more as an emotional example and not a sound reason. The conclusion we should expect the work of even professional philosophers to contain fallacies with some regularity is not entailed by the premise that philosophers have opinions, agendas, and flaws. The point was to once again make the action of torture about weighing it with the amount of innocent lives at stake. In any case, I ask you to face the question with an open mind. The most powerful argument against using torture as a punishment or to secure confessions is that such practices disregard the rights of the individual.
Can we make this multiple choice? By doing so, the author created the effect of pathos and making it so relatable. We covered a few of them on Thursday; as you attempt to answer the rest, I will provide any necessary corrections or clarifications through this blog. Levin also writes on his belief that most terrorists do their crimes for publicity, and because of that, terrorists should be fairly easy to identify, and later be tortured. Because of lack of good logic and reasoning, most of the reasoning he gives is heavily based on pathetic appeals. Although Levin makes a compelling argument that torture should be used when innocent lives are at stake; there are other alternative which can be just as effective as torture without taking away any constitutional rights. In his given example, he argues that the mass murder of millions of innocent people by a terrorist justifies the use of torture to stop such an extreme barbaric act.
In the poll, four mothers are asked if they would approve the torturing of the kidnapper that kidnaps their child if that were necessary to get them back. It allows them to operate productively, and lubricates the virtues and high aspirations of society. Indeed this is a question of moral on the action of inflicting pain. Innocent lives should be protected. For a western audience in the mid-1980s these references would be painfully familiar and would evoke strong emotional responses. Although his beliefs and theories supporting this claim are subjective, there is evidence that can support his stance on this topic; we will analyze this claim in further detail and how it relates to his other views mentioned in. Yet, despite its cruelty and sadistic manner, does torture punishment need to be eliminated from this world and never be used? The only attempt to reference a source is an informal poll from four anonymous mothers.
We need to provide her in turn with civil liberties, a fair trial, the right to trial by jury. Torture of any kind is a barbarity best left to the dark ages. I didn't read the paper; it's just an example of a published paper on the topic. Another possible position is that torture is awful but sometimes justified of course this may be the position taken by those governments listed above. It looks at things too simply and constantly abuses emotionally charged words. However, stifling dissent may also be deemed as necessary to preserve order.
As we defined in class torture is the action of inflicting severe pain on someone in order to force them to reveal information. Where are there controversies regarding torture around the world today, and when in history have these controversies arisen? With that said, the use of torture by American soldiers on enemy prisoners during a time of war should never be used because it is ineffective, produces unreliable intelligence and a loss of credibility in American democracy. . The issue is that it lacks background because it doesn't appear. Throughout this article, Levin discusses many different reasons that torture should be used. This line of reasoning is tiresome. What is the issue Levin addresses? He refutes this idea by mentioning that the majority of terrorists aim to be publically recognized and therefore it is easy to tell if a terrorist is guilty or innocent.
Levin presents weak argument and he mostly relies on hypothetical scenarios. Levin is vague on methods, assumes torture always works, may assume that electrodes can generate more pain than other methods. A agent scream at him. There are a few major points in Levin's argument for torture. For centuries the human race has oppressed and persecuted others strictly because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual etc.
Levin forebodes of other terrorist events, and resolves that torture will ultimately be the only way to save thousands of lives. When a terrorist has clearly intended to harm the lives of millions, why is it not justified then, to inflict pain on the terrorist, with the motive of wanting to protect the lives of many more innocent people? Levin undoubtedly would use such incidents to back up his side, but his interest here is not in compensating victims or in deterrence of crime through harsher punishment. Professional philosophers are perfectly capable of writing a piece without any fallacies in them. Should the constitution then continue to protect the terrorist against such torture? Pathos is an emotional appeal used to gain sympathy and trust from the audience and works for people of all intellectual levels. That's not to say that careful torture cannot extract information; but this is far from a sure thing and is not a binary scenario of torture to receive information or do not torture and leave the information. Levin acknowledges that using torture as a means of interrogation is probably unconstitutional however that the lives of millions should outweigh the constitutional morality of the issue.
While safety is certainly a circumstance to be treasured, the vulnerability that pokes its head through the cracks should not be taken for granted. Why should they have the right to complain about being tortured when they were going to cause pain on others. Torture would be a way to gather information to save innocent lives and killing Hitler would have also spared the lives of innocent people. It debases those that use it. This is also possible in the case of torturing a terrorist. Levin addresses the issue of torturing the wrong person. But if there is still some uncertainty about why people disagree or what the disagreement involves, then we must immediately slow down and work through some more questions which are meant to help in clarifying issues.