Torture Is Ever Justificable?
Torture: Is It Ever Justifiable?
By: Michael Levin In this essay Michael Levin is trying to convey that torture could be good. He believes in this theory because he thinks that if someone has done harm to another person than doing harm to the criminal is only natural. Michael Levin said “I am advocating torture as an acceptable measure for preventing future evils.” What he means by this is that, by showing people that others have been through the death penalty it gives the public the thought in the back of their minds saying that, if I do harm to a person, harm will be done to me. I would have to agree and also disagree with the statements that Michael Levin made through his essay. I would have to agree partially because, if someone did harm to me or to a friend I would hope that they would suffer in some kind of way to get back at them. I know this maybe isn’t the right thing to say but I would be devastated if someone killed someone in my family or friends. Also when Michael quoted that he was advocating torture as an acceptable measure for preventing future kills I think is true. I this this is a true statement because it shows the world what will happen to you if you harm someone else. I would also have to disagree with Michael Levin because as part of my religion and what
I have been grown up with I don’t think people should be tortured. I would almost rather for a criminal to sit in jail for the rest of their life and think and regret what they have done. This would also show others the dark side of jail and how you can become mentally unstable. Overall Michael did a good job explaining, to torture only the obviously guilty, and only for the sake of saving innocents, and the line between the USA and the others will remain clear. I would mainly agree of what he had to say throughout the
By: Michael Levin In this essay Michael Levin is trying to convey that torture could be good. He believes in this theory because he thinks that if someone has done harm to another person than doing harm to the criminal is only natural. Michael Levin said “I am advocating torture as an acceptable measure for preventing future evils.” What he means by this is that, by showing people that others have been through the death penalty it gives the public the thought in the back of their minds saying that, if I do harm to a person, harm will be done to me. I would have to agree and also disagree with the statements that Michael Levin made through his essay. I would have to agree partially because, if someone did harm to me or to a friend I would hope that they would suffer in some kind of way to get back at them. I know this maybe isn’t the right thing to say but I would be devastated if someone killed someone in my family or friends. Also when Michael quoted that he was advocating torture as an acceptable measure for preventing future kills I think is true. I this this is a true statement because it shows the world what will happen to you if you harm someone else. I would also have to disagree with Michael Levin because as part of my religion and what
I have been grown up with I don’t think people should be tortured. I would almost rather for a criminal to sit in jail for the rest of their life and think and regret what they have done. This would also show others the dark side of jail and how you can become mentally unstable. Overall Michael did a good job explaining, to torture only the obviously guilty, and only for the sake of saving innocents, and the line between the USA and the others will remain clear. I would mainly agree of what he had to say throughout the