Torture should be permissible when all evidence suggests that it is the only way to save innocent lives. The self-defense right is an inviolable right and given the choice between inflicting harm on a criminal and thus saving innocent people or doing nothing it would be irresponsible to prefer the defense of the wrongdoers.
If a kidnapper points a gun to the head of a hostage, police would shoot the criminal if they had the chance and it would be legal. Why then abstaining from doing something that does not go as far as a murder and that can also save lives? They say that if torture were to be authorized in some cases, its use would probable increase in different situations. Based on the belief of being able to determine good and evil, Levin is arguing to dare an alleged objective view on torture to disregard a terrorists rights to save a large group of people , but supports it with subjective examples mother-kidnapper-example.
Beyond, he misses to mention what is well proven by psychological interrogation studies: that tortured is comparatively not a effective method of interrogation, considered the anxiety behavior of suspects. All arguments considered, Levin disregards the significant fact, that the fear of terror is devouring instead of bringing freedom. This greatest good has to be understood at its deepest sense and therefore looked at from a human right perspective.
By Astrid Holzinger. Who are the Victims of Torture? Download PDF. He writes very bluntly and concisely, refusing to gently ease the reader into the subject matter. The terrorist intentionally brought people to danger, the victims did not ask for the danger. The other rebuttal that Levin makes is to people that may say there is room for error or misuse of power. Levin also shies away from showing the other side of the argument, for good reason. If someone were to challenge Levin, an effective way would be to flip the discussion on him and show the other side.
The argument is that by killing the murderer, you are not bringing back the victim that was killed. Levin explains that instead of killing after a murder has occurred, he advocates that torturing someone stops the innocent from being dispatched. Levin makes it clear that torture should ONLY be used for the saving of lives. This leads to what he believes is the most powerful argument against torture.
People would insist that such practices disregard the rights of the individual. Levin first counter-argument is presented when he says "Well, if the individual is all that important, and he is, it is correspondingly important to protect the rights of individuals threatened by terrorist. It seemed like a very sound argument to me because of the way he used anti-torture line to support his pro-torture argument. By threatening to kill for profit or idealism, he renounces civilized standards, and he can have no complaint if civilization tries to thwart him by whatever means necessary.
He thinks if a person decides to oppose civilized standards, he should not expect to be treated with the same rights as the people who do follow civilized standards. Although it sounds reasonable, he does make an assumption here. Does this mean that a sociopath that cannot distinguish between civilized standards would not be tortured? I feel a bit more of clarification could help this argument. Levin addresses the issue of torturing the wrong person. He starts off by making an assumption terrorist proclaim themselves and perform for television and public recognition.
It is just another hypothetical situation to bend things his way without providing documented evidence of a real life situation where the terrorist actually identified themselves. It is as though in his eyes, he thinks finding the right perpetrator is a very simple task. I noticed that his claim seems a bit modified in the last paragraph.
Levin starts the article speaking of torture ONLY for the saving of innocent lives, but now, he speaks of torture for preserving order. Does this broaden up the whole claim? He also predicts that someday soon many lives will be threatened and torture will be the only way to save them. This prediction is supported by no evidence what so ever and is clearly only to provide fear to the person reading it.
The discussion of key terms was decent in this article. When he speaks of torture the closest description I found that define torture to Levin is: "Subjecting someone to the most excruciating pain. I believe he did not provide any better example of this because it can very well make a reader oppose of the torturing right away if he speaks of a more gruesome example.
Levin also uses the word moral cowardice to describe allowing the death of millions of innocent lives. He does a good job by explaining that it means the unwillingness of dirtying ones hands. Regarding tone and ethos, the author starts off taking a big risk by introducing the topic of torture as something societies reject outright, then saying he opposes the beliefs of society on that topic.
Not only does he just oppose it, he says it is unwise. I think by doing that, he may give the reader a sense that he thinks only his beliefs are wise and that he does not respect any other ideas.
0コメント