The Case for Torture by Michael Levin

Overview
- Michael Levin presents an explicit argument in favor of torture in extreme situations.
- His viewpoint is contentious and draws on moral and ethical considerations, particularly the value of saving lives against the morality of torture.
Premise of the Argument
- Torture is traditionally viewed as impermissible and a remnant of barbarism, rejected by enlightened societies and disallowed by the United States' ethical standards.
- Levin counters this, arguing there are scenarios where torture is necessary and ethically justified.
Hypothetical Scenarios
- Levin uses vivid hypothetical scenarios to illustrate his point:
- Terrorist Threat with an Atomic Bomb:
  - Scenario: A terrorist places a bomb in Manhattan, set to detonate unless demands are met. The terrorist refuses to reveal the bomb’s location.
  - Levin argues that the moral imperative to save millions outweighs the constitutional or ethical concerns against torture.
- Real-Life Implications:
  - If due process is followed, and the terrorist is not coerced, many innocents may die. Thus, if torture might save lives, it raises the ethical question of inaction versus action.
- Levin states, "what grounds can there be for not doing so? I suggest there are none."
Moral Considerations
- Comparison of Torture and Mass Murder:
- Levin positions torture as a lesser evil compared to mass murder. His argument suggests that allowing millions to die out of moral apprehension is cowardice.
- Responsibility in the Face of Direct Threats:
- He challenges readers to consider the emotional burden of inaction when lives are at stake, asserting that moral choices must be made based on potential outcomes rather than principles alone.
- Argument Structure:
- Concedes that torture could lead to constitutional issues but emphasizes that saving lives supersedes these concerns.
Further Scenarios
- Disarming a Bomb on a Plane:
- A bomber knows how to disarm a bomb planted on a plane but is unwilling to cooperate. Levin argues it justifies extreme measures, including torture.
- Kidnapping of a Newborn:
- Interviews with mothers reveal a willingness to advocate for torture to save their own children from kidnappers, illustrating the personal nature of the moral dilemma.
Contextual Justifications
- Levin presents a contextual analysis distinguishing between the terrorists’ intentions and the value of innocent lives. He argues:
- Terrorists knowingly engage in dangerous, violent actions and therefore forfeit certain rights to humane treatment.
- Torture should only be applied in cases where it is clear that the individual possesses critical information that can save lives.
Challenges to Authority and Ethics
- Potential for Abuse of Power:
- Levin acknowledges fears of misapplying torture but insists clear criteria and oversight can mitigate risks.
- Argues that those who label all forms of coercion as torture ignore the context and proportionality of extreme situations where lives hang in the balance.
Comparisons to Historical Actions
- Levin draws parallels between torture and other extreme measures like assassination or preemptive strikes, suggesting that failure to act when lives are at stake is equally unethical.
- Uses examples from history (assassination of Reinhard Heydrich) to bolster his argument that necessary actions can be justified even if they seem morally questionable.
Philosophical Underpinnings
- Levin suggests that if society accepts that innocent lives can be saved through coercive means, there must be philosophical contemplation on where to draw the line on acceptable behavior during extreme crises.
Final Call to Action
- Levin asserts that individuals and societies need to confront these difficult discussions surrounding torture, especially as potential threats evolve.
- He emphasizes the urgency of preparing for the realities of terrorism that may challenge prevailing moral stances.
Conclusion
- The stark question posed: "Will we allow innocent lives to be spent due to a refusal to engage in what we deem as immoral?"
- Emphasizes a need for dialogue on ethical dilemmas surrounding torture and national security in contemporary society, remarking that neglecting these issues has dire implications.

Notes on the Argument's Presentation

Use of Hypotheticals
- Levin's scenarios effectively appeal to readers' emotions by placing them in extreme but relatable situations. This method can evoke visceral reactions that challenge abstract moral arguments.
Effectiveness of Comparative Analysis
- The comparisons to assassination and historical precedents serve to normalize the idea of using extreme measures under certain circumstances, creating a systematic view of ethical dilemmas in national security contexts.
Critique of the Framework
- While Levin's argument provides a critical perspective, it invites considerable ethical debate. Skeptics may argue that the scenarios are designed to evoke fear and overlook the nuanced realities of torture and its implications.
Classroom Discussion Points
- Importance of student engagement with Levin's work to critique and analyze the complexities of arguments about torture and ethics.
- Encouragement of understanding both sides of the debate and recognizing the subjective nature of moral choices in crisis situations.