"The Case For Torture"

Write a minimum of a 5 paragraph composition on the following:

1. The theme of the article

 2. The main points that Levin discusses

3. The examples that Levin uses

 4. Your critical analysis of his viewpoint.

I write an essay based on the guide questions

Step-by-step explanation

              Michael Levin his essay,  "The Case for Torture," argues that torture is justified and necessary under extreme circumstances. He believes that if a person accepts torture to be justified under extreme cases, then the person automatically accepts torture. Levin presents a weak argument and he mostly relies on hypothetical scenarios. There is no concrete evidence that torture solves problems and stops crime but rather the contrary. Under international law, torture is illegal and all the United Nations members have to abide by those rules.  The use of torture does not keep people safe, but rather the opposite. Torture has a profound effect on democracy. As the use of torture becomes normal in society, the right of the citizen will suffer great

                Levin wants to change the negative views that society placed on torture so that, under extreme circumstances torture would be acceptable. He begins his essay with a brief description of why society views the topic of torture as a negative thing. He disagrees with those views and presents three different cases in which he thinks torture must be carried out with provides few reasons to support his claim. He uses hypothetical cases that are very extreme to situations that we experience in our daily lives. From the start, Levin makes it perfectly clear to the reader that he accepts torture as a punishment. He tries to distinguish the difference between terrorists, and victims in order to stop the talk of terrorists "right,"  Levin also explains that terrorists commit their crimes for publicity, and for that reason they should be identified and be tortured. He ends his essay by saying that torture is not threat to Western democracy but rather the opposite. 

            He states that one of the most compelling arguments against the use of torture is that, "such practices disregard the rights of the individual" 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." Levin is basically claiming that although he sees the importance of human rights, he feels like valuing one life over potentially saving hundreds of 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 in his arguments. 

               The reason it is weak is that 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. 

                      Levin's hypothetical leads to the illogical "A Case For Torture." 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.