Rhetorical analysis on Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture” Essay Example

believe this attitude is unwise. There are situations in which torture is not merely permissible but morally mandatory.” (Levin, 2012).

Having stimulated the audience in a new perception on torture, he proceeds to give logical assumptions and cases. These cases are meant to guide the reader to critically think and draw their own conclusions. First, he gives an assumption of a terrorist who is holding a city of millions hostage to an atomic bomb. However, much emphasis should be put on the quote, “Suppose, further, that he is caught at 10 a.m. on the fateful day, but preferring death to failure, won't disclose where the bomb is… If we follow due process, wait for his lawyer… millions of people will die. If the only way to save those lives is to subject the terrorist to the most excruciating possible pain, what grounds can there be for not doing so?” In this assumption, Levin implies that legal ways may sometimes be too slow and only some special methods can save the day (Smith, 2007). The reader will therefore perceive that an alternative method is needed by applying logic.

Levin uses questions to guide the reader in reasoning. For instance, after the first logic assumption he asks the reader “…won't disclose where the bomb is. What do we do? If the only way to save those lives is to subject the terrorist to the most excruciating possible pain, what grounds can there be for not doing so?” (Levin, 2012). The questions are a systematic way of directing the reader to his conclusion of torture might be considered as an option if many innocent lives are at stake.

Levin also provokes

the readers’ emotions and feelings by using emotional dilemmas in the third logic assumptions. However, much is to be said on the third assumption where a terrorist kidnapped a baby. It is evidently true that human beings are fond of their young ones and every person will show sympathy to the child. The perception brought by this is that, using a child as bait is inhumane and therefore to the reader, torture may even be a mere consequence of that. Quoting The Case for Torture, “…I asked four mothers if they would approve of torturing kidnappers if that were necessary to get their own newborns back. All said yes, the most "liberal" adding that she would like to administer it herself.” (Levin, 2012). From this case, torture really makes sense to the reader due to the pathos employed by Levin.

Just to support his idea, Levin goes ahead to provide specific statistics or evidence in paragraph seven: “…I am not advocating torture as punishment. Punishment is addressed to deeds irrevocably past. Rather, I am advocating torture as an acceptable measure for preventing future evils”. He uses the constitution as evidence to justification of torture by arguing “…Torturing the terrorist is unconstitutional? Probably. But millions of lives surely outweigh constitutionality. Torture is barbaric? Mass murder is far more barbaric. Indeed, letting millions of innocents die in deference to one who flaunts his guilt is moral cowardice, an unwillingness to dirty one's hands” (Levin, 2012). He uses the term “Probably” to insist the reader in making the decision. What the constitution claims is used by Levin to explain to the reader how the law might have a flaw

in being against an act aimed at protecting the very people the constitution protects. He properly brings the reader to understanding that torture is less barbaric compared to murder.

In conclusion, Levin conveniently applies ethical appeal in the article by differentiating between torture, death penalty and murder. From this he shows what the reader should accept as morally right. He argues that “torture, in the cases described, is intended not to bring anyone back but to keep innocents from being dispatched.” In as much as ethical considerations are concerned, Levin advocates for torture as tool for use when necessary and not always. All in all, the logic application, ethical creativity and emotional sensitivity throughout the article help readers in discerning how torture may be a solution to future evils; “I am advocating torture as an acceptable measure for preventing future evils” (Levin, 2012).