Finally, Levin discusses torturing the obviously guilty, which means there is substantial proof that the individual caught is guilty.
The essay "How to Argue Against Torture", by Bernard Chazelle, Chazelle use a logos type of support for his argument against torture. Logos is the use of logic to persuade an audience in a certain direction. There are three major points to Chazelle's essay against torture: consistency, rarity principle, and self-defense. Chazelle uses consistency in the way of granting every person the same fairness and rights. Furthermore, Chazelle says, "Our own code of warfare, such as it is, dictates that it apply equally to both sides –as do the Geneva Conventions" (5). The next major issue Chazelle addresses is the rarity principle, which is an event or object that does not happen often. We cannot use exceptions to make new laws just because of a terrible act of evil. The last issue that Chazelle addresses is self-defense, which is utterly absurd because a captive is no longer a threat of imminent danger.
The articles have some similarties, and one of the similarities was how they use terrorist to explain there views on torture. They also use war as a way to justify their beliefs on torture. They use the ticking time bomb scenario to help support their views on torture, and how the authors use innocent lives to justify the use of torture. "The Case for Torture" by Michael Levin says "Once you concede that torture is justified in extreme cases, you have admitted that the decision to use torture is a matter of balancing innocent lives against the means to save them" (203). The use of torture can be justified in extreme cases when the lives of innocent individuals are at stake. In "How to Argue Against Torture," Chazelle wrote "so an action likely to cause one million deaths at one millionth the rate of murder matches the expected harm of murder, and hence merits its own law; ergo, legalize torture.
