In this paper the audience that Levin is seemingly try to get his point across to is pretty much anyone who lives in the Unites States and the government. He is trying to persuade them that torture on any sort of terrorist is a good thing. He believes that if you do not torture a terrorist there is no other way you can be able to gain important information from them about any bombs that they have planted. As you can see here is an example of what is trying to be proved, “Suppose a terrorist has hidden a bomb on

Manhattan Island which will detonate at noon on July 4 unless….Suppose, further, that he is caught at 10 am of the fateful day, but – preferring death to failure- won’t disclose where the bomb is. What do we do? If we follow due process-wait for his lawyer, arraign him-millions of people will die. 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 doing so?” Levin’s reason for wanting to persuade the audience of people of the Unites States is to convince them that torture is alright on terrorists because even though it is immoral to do so, it will still save an extreme amount of lives by doing it. I believe that there position on the issue is that Levin is for torture, only because he knows that it will save many lives in the long run. He also knows that it is immoral to do it, but he knows that if he does it, that one life he tortures will save many lives in the future. As you can see he says so here, “Once you concede that torture is justified in extreme cases, you have admitted that the decision to use torture

Some topics in this essay:
Manhattan Island, Michael Levin, , save lives, towards topic, believes torture, gain information, trying convince people, type attitude levin, levin saying, levin trying, trying convince, convince people, torture punishment, trying torture,