Rhetorical Analysis Essay on Michael Levin s The Case for Torture. Amy Hong

Transcription

1 Rhetorical Analysis Essay on Michael Levin s The Case for Torture Amy Hong English Composition Professor Yeh 3 June 2015

2 Hong 1 Rhetorical Analysis Essay on Michael Levin s The Case for Torture Michael Levin, who was born in 1943, is a philosophy professor at City University of New York. Most of his works are related to philosophy such as philosophy of logic, language and science. The work, The Case of Torture, argued that whether torture is wrong in any situation or not. He raised some examples to support what he tried to say and in the end he wrote "Someday soon a terrorist will threaten tens of thousands of lives, and torture will be the only way to save them..." to let reader make a critical thinking. In this work, nothing is totally right or not; the author left space to lead readers think about the issue and made this work be full of color of philosophy. At the beginning of The Case for torture, Michael Levin directly points out what thought general publics have on torture in first paragraph: It is generally assumed that torture is impermissible, a throwback to a more brutal age. Enlightened societies reject it outright, and regimes suspected of using it risk the wrath of the United States. (Levin). He use a strong word reject to show readers that the publics in the enlightened societies are disgusted with torturing people and it indicates that torture is not acceptable and is regarded as an evil in this generation. However, in the next

3 Hong 2 paragraph he stated: I believe this attitude is unwise. (Levin). He expresses his feeling on this general thought of publics and to support his disagreement, he raises several examples and use hypothetical device to explain his opinion. Next, Michael Levin provides a logical assumption: Suppose a terrorist has hidden an atomic bomb on Manhattan Island which will detonate at noon on July 4 unless... here follow the usual demands for money and release of his friends from jail. 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. What do we do? If we follow due process, wait for his lawyer, arraign him, millions of people will die. This assumption implies that once people s lives are threatened, the legal and normal way will be too late to save those lives; only some special methods can save the people. Generally, when people are not endangered, they will not consider torture as a measure protecting them. In third paragraph, Michael Levin also asks that if giving bad guy excruciating pain can save millions of people s lives, is there any reason not doing that? Then, he says I suggest there are none. He uses suggest to strongly express that he actually does not agree that torturing is always wrong in anytime and anywhere.

4 Hong 3 After showing his attitude towards torture, he started providing more specific questions and evidence to support his idea. He first asks Torturing the terrorist is unconstitutional?, and then answers by himself Probably. But millions of lives surely outweigh constitutionality. The word, constitutionality, means the highest law standard in one country, and everyone should not be against it. The author use hypothetical question to emphases that even if constitutionality is the highest standard, people still can do something which might be against it to keep them save. Here is to tell readers again that torture can be consider as a method of defending if it is necessary. Therefore, he offers another question: Torture is barbaric?. Compare with what murders did, torture is perhaps less barbaric. Michael Levin is trying to persuade readers what murders have done might be much brutal. As the evidences Michael Levin provides in previous paragraph, reader can know that people might need torture to defend justice sometimes; in paragraph 7, he use pathos to clearly state his position: I am advocating torture as an acceptable measure for preventing future evils. The word advocate means that he is not against torturing people even if it ignores the rights of human. Moreover, the phrase future evil might be very similar to necessary evil. When there is something evil,

5 Hong 4 there must be something which have more power to fight against it, and that is necessary evil. Then, he provides logical example to prove the idea. He states: Opponents of the death penalty, for example, are forever insisting that executing a murderer will not bring back his victim (as if the purpose of capital punishment were supposed to be resurrection, not deterrence or retribution). But torture, in the cases described, is intended not to bring anyone back but to keep innocents from being dispatched. The difference between death penalty and torture is that death penalty cannot bring back victim, but torture can avoid this kind of disaster happened. Now Michael Levin is still a professor in University. His work The Case for Torture has led this society think over what the differences between penalty and torture. He provided the evidences and asked questions to lead readers make a critical thinking and think over whether torture is totally bad in any situation or not; he suggests that torture is an acceptable measure in some situation.

6 Hong 5 Works Cited Levin, Michael. The Case for Torture. The Norton Reader. 12 EdPeterson, Brereton. New York: W.W. Norton & Company,