Michael Levin's Argument Against Torture

“It should not be Permissible to Torture Suspected Terrorists to Gather Information” by Vincent Iacopino and “The Case for Torture” by Michael Levin both use different techniques to defend their stance against torture. However, both authors use deductive reasoning to defend their opinion on torture and both authors have similarities through out their essays and use some of the same examples to explain their argument. Both essays make a strong argument against torture but I feel Michael Levin’s essay “The Case for Torture” is stronger in comparison to Vincent Iacopino’s “It should not be Permissible to Torture Suspected Terrorists to Gather Information”. Michael Levin has a stronger persuasive argument and Vincent Iacopino’s essay is weak in reasoning.
Levin also mainly uses the persuasion method of answering the opposition but he uses more examples than Iacopino does. Levin begins his essay by stating that “it is generally assumed that torture is impermissible, a throwback to a more brutal age” he also questions the oppositions and answers to defend his opinion when he states “torturing the terrorist is unconstitutional? Probably. But millions of lives surely outweigh constitutionality”. This is effective because he shows that he is aware of the questions of the opposition but feels strong enough that torture can be justified to go against the majority of people who think torture is immoral and can never be used, he uses this to show that he has a good enough argument to go against what most people think or feel. He also states “if you caught the terrorist, could you sleep nights knowing that millions died because you couldn’t bring yourself to apply to electrodes?” he uses this example to make it personal, to show people that torture can be used in some situations. By making it personal he makes people think about the idea that torture can be used if it is