I agree with Michael Levin. I think that it would be necessary to torture a terrorist in order to save those innocent victims that he would be attempting to kill. The author of the essay states, "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? I suggest that there are none." I agree with him on this point. If the cost of saving the lives of the innocent victims is putting the terrorist in excruciating pain, I think that it would be a cost that I would be willing to take, regardless of what our constitution states. He also claims that life in an incredibly valuable thing and that you must save the lives of the innocents rather than the one that endangers them. I think that this statement is true. Life is one of the most valuable possessions and saving lives is more important than putting the person who is trying to take life away in pain.
As I said, I agree with the ideas that Michael Levin has brought up in this essay. Torture is a moral question. Putting someone in pain for information is a drastic method and I think that the only reason we should do this is to prevent the loss of life.
1 comment:
I agree with your view about how if it means one persons pain for in order to save many others than it is worth it. If a terrorist is willing to put himself in a position to hurt or kill many then they should be prepared to have the same consequenc Levin e. Even though it is unconstitutional, there are certain measures that talk about in which it is expectable.
Post a Comment