The Case for Torture :: Michael Levin Ethics

I seek to provide an analysis on Michael Levins article on The grammatical case for Torture. This article mainly articulates that the use of worrying is necessary in locate to safeguard the follows of the some(prenominal) innocents and is justifiable. In his given example, he argues that the mass take away of millions of innocent people by a terrorist justifies the use of optical aberration to seal off such an extreme barbaric act. Indeed this is a question of lesson on the bodily function of inflicting pain. Take a look at the scenario of a war. We will never say that it is immoral to let out soldiers turn thumbs down or inflict pain on the enemies in a war because we know that it is the only way to safeguard our nations sovereignty and the lives of our people. The motives are rattling clear as mentioned. Thus it is justifiable to let our soldiers kill those who intend to harm the lives of our citizens. When a terrorist has clearly intended to harm the lives of million s, why is it not justified then, to inflict pain on the terrorist, with the motive of wanting to nurture the lives of many more innocent people? Surely it is Take a look at this argument Constitution seeks to protect the interest of ones rights. To torture a person is to breach that protection of interest. Therefore, Torture is un reputational. Torturing is however, unconstitutional only when the motives behind it are deemed reasonably immoral. We should then of course not inflict pain mainly just to force the other company to confess the truth to a matter if he does not paying attention to. But what if the truth will then lead to the location of say, a timed-bomb, which will then be diffused in time to maintain an entire office block to collapse, bringing with it a thousand or more lives? Should the constitution then continue to protect the terrorist against such torture? The author said that millions of lives outweigh constitutionality. Surely it is not justiable for a con stitution to uphold the rights of a terrorist, but at the expense of the thousands that, too, holds the right to live never asked to be placed in such danger. Again, the moral of ones action must be reviewed in such cases. On a individual(prenominal) note, I feel that to sacrifice one that is convicted, in exchanged for the many innocents, is a permissible one.