Social_Influences_in_Consumer_Behavior

Torture Articles Analysis It has been roughly eight years since the terrors attacks of 9-11 tragically occurred and a war against terror was launched. This war against terror has been recently brought to light through the media, the topic of torture. Two articles that argue the topic of torture include the article, “Is Torture Ever Justified'” by Professor Michael Levin and an editorial article found in The Economist. These two articles help bring the idea of torture into perspective on different levels and viewpoints. In Michael Levin’s article on torture pre September 11th, Levin takes a strong stance quickly on the issue stating that in specific situations it is “morally mandatory” to engage in torture. Levin follows his initial strong stance with a barrage of scenarios in which torture might be the deciding factor in saving the day. He tries to sway the reader to his logic by trying to appeal to their pathos and through guilt. For example; “If you caught the terrorist, could you sleep nights knowing that millions died because you couldn’t bring yourself to apply the electrodes'” He uses guilt and follows his intense scenarios of terrorism with a sense of justification for committing torture to another human being. Levin justifies torture of a terrorist acceptable when the lives of innocent’s people are at stake and when it could be the deciding factor if they lived or died. In order to protect his ethos, Levin uses his reasoning that he is not an “advocate of torture as punishment, rather as an acceptable measure for preventing future evils.” This was an excellent part of his article because it ascertains to the reader that he is not barbaric, but rather believes in protecting innocent lives even if it means the extreme case of torture which only strengthens his argument. Although, his argument is flawed when he assumes that torture always gets the answers needed in a timely manor in order to save the day, but in reality when a human being is under excruciating pain, one might give false information just to get the pain to stop. In addition who is to say that a terrorist is easily identified' Yet, he does an effective job in addressing the other sides counter points to his argument and answers them with his own logic. In The Economist editorial written after September 11th it takes a different approach compared to that of the article by Michael Levin. The editorial article almost plays as devils advocate reminding the reader of western democratic ideals that implore the long upheld ban on the act of torture. Yet, they do state “much as one would like to believe that torture never succeeds in extracting vital information, history says otherwise”. With this pro torture statement it is followed up with the consequences that the editorial brings to light that torture would “shatter the taboo” of western ideals allowing torture which in their thoughts is well worth preserving. With one sentence in the entire article, it leaves the door open for discussion about how the editorial leans when it states “there is room for discussion about what the limits should be”. This shows that throughout the article the editorials objective was to open the eyes of the reader and bring up points that are not usually thought of; also to inject logic into the topic of torture without taking a strong stance on one side or the other leaving a positive ethos of the editorial staff. Although these two articles are about the same topic the two authors have clear differences in their personal points of view. Levin never comes out and defines what he means by torture rather assumes we all define torture the same. He does imply to what he defines torture as when he says “to subject the terrorist to the most excruciating possible pain”. On the other hand, the editorial has a more in depth definition of torture explaining different techniques used on individuals. It is very clear where Levin stands on the issue and has little information from the other side of his viewpoint which leads the reader to believe he is biased. The editorial has more points on both sides of the argument and leaves the decision more up to the reader rather than a strong stance on which side to choose. This help the editorials ethos because they seem less biased therefore the reader may conclude they are more of a reputable source. Levin concludes that in extreme situations torture should be deemed necessary and would ultimately help save lives. The editorial does not necessarily disagree with this, but gives the consequences and what we would be sacrificing as a country allowing the reader a more broad perspective of the argument. All in all I thought both did an excellent job targeting their readers and trying to get their point across. Levin tends to be more adamant about his stance on torture and gives less of the other side of the argument and its consequences whereas The Economist article does a better job of. I found myself agreeing with Levin and then after reading the editorial article found myself aware of the consequences and other side that would be affected if torture were allowed. Nevertheless the reader has the power in what to assess each side and make their own decision.