Michael Levin's article on "The Case for Torture." is an article which mainly discusess the use
of torture as necessary and important in order to safeguard the lives of the many innocents
and society and, is justifiable.
In one of his examples, he verbally states that the mass murder of millions of an innocent
crowd by a terrorist justifies the use an act of torture to stop such a brutal and barbaric act.
This is a question of ethics on the action of wreak havoc. We need to look at the scenario of
a war. People will never say that it is immoral or bad to let our soldiers kill or inflict pain on
the enemies in a war because we know that it is the only way to make secure and safeguard
our nation's freedom and the lives of our country men.
The motives are very clear as mentioned in the article. Thus it‘s justifiable to let our soldiers
kill those who want to harm the lives of our people. When a terrorist clearly have a
willingness to harm the lives of millions of people, why is it not justified, to inflict pain on
the terrorist, with the aim of wanting to protect and secure the lives of many more
innocent people? Surely it is a right decision!
Now one may look at this argument: The Constitution of America protects the interest
of one's rights but, to torture a person is a breach of law that protection of interest is not
there. Therefore, Torture is illegitimate. Torturing is however, is an illegal act only when the
aim behind it is deemed reasonably immoral. One should then not inflict pain mainly just to
push the other party to make a confession of the truth to a matter if one does not wish to do.
But, what if the truth will then lead to the place of say, a bomb, which could then be diffused
in time and pressure to prevent an entire office block not to be damaged, bringing with it a
millions of more lives?
Should the law then continue to protect and secure the terrorist against such a torture? The
author said that thousands of lives outweigh legally. Surely, it is not justifying for a law to
uphold the rights of a terrorist, but at the expense of the countrymen that, too, holds the
right to live never asked to be placed in such a danger. The moral of one's action should be
reviewed in such painful cases. On a personal side, I feel like saying that to sacrifice one that
is convicted, in exchange for the many of innocents who are not even responsible for such an
act, is a allowable, one. The author specially mentioned that there whoever, exists one
powerful altercation against the use of act of torture and that is, it practices the disgraceful
for the rights of an individual or a person. As countrymen, we all agree that everyone of us is
entitled to the right to live our life peacefully.
However, when a terrorist has already aimed and moved out to kill millions of people, has
he not shown disrespect for the right to life of the millions that will die under his act of
crime? Surely he would! But again...