According to Cruz, the American Dream is not ‘be successful’ but ‘don’t lose’. Being successful, according to him, means getting what you want in life. Don’t lose means that you have to get to the top, no matter what stands in your way or what you have to sacrifice to get there. His problem is that when you get to the top, or near it, you forget who helped you to get there and where you came from. In other words, the Dream is all about you, you, you. He thinks that’s wrong.
I agree with him, somewhat. If you do get to the top, if you manage to overcome the obstacles the wrong way, I think it might be possible to remember to feel thankful for those who sacrificed for you. Cruz got really far and still remembered. Of course, then he dropped out to be a farmer because he thought he couldn’t still manage to be both who he was and who the in-power people wanted him to be. But that’s just him. Near the end, he mentions people who told him that he should stay where he was, influentially, because it helps break the stereotype that the minorities are useless. His response was that he didn’t think the minorities at the top were represented as the rest of people and that he couldn’t ethically stay where he was.
Friday, 28 September 2007
Wednesday, 26 September 2007
Class Distinctions
Yes, Mantsios’s essay does say that the wealthy are exploiting the poor. He says the false idea that ‘one is not rich because the other is poor’ is wrong. Therefore, according to him, one class is rich because the other is poor. Since we can assume from his argument that the poor are not poor because they caused themselves to be like that, we can assume that he means that the wealthy do exploit the poor. However, that point isn’t obvious.
I personally don’t have another interpretation of the data/a position on the argument. I don’t think that Mantsios makes a good argument- the way he presents his facts, for example is skewed towards his point of view. The people profiles seem to be deliberately made up, especially the last one, to fit his interpretation of the facts. He rushes into some things, like the gender/race inequality thing, without mentioning it before or presenting a lot of thought. Because I only have his version of the data to go on, and a little knowledge of my own, I feel like I agree with him that America’s rich and poor are very divided the way he states it. However, like I said, his argument seems a little shaky, so I’m really not sure if he’s accurate, though he doesn’t seem to be blatantly twisting things around.
EDIT: After our class discussions on this, I changed my mind a little on the subject. But I forgot what I changed my mind about so I won't edit my orginal thing. :)
I personally don’t have another interpretation of the data/a position on the argument. I don’t think that Mantsios makes a good argument- the way he presents his facts, for example is skewed towards his point of view. The people profiles seem to be deliberately made up, especially the last one, to fit his interpretation of the facts. He rushes into some things, like the gender/race inequality thing, without mentioning it before or presenting a lot of thought. Because I only have his version of the data to go on, and a little knowledge of my own, I feel like I agree with him that America’s rich and poor are very divided the way he states it. However, like I said, his argument seems a little shaky, so I’m really not sure if he’s accurate, though he doesn’t seem to be blatantly twisting things around.
EDIT: After our class discussions on this, I changed my mind a little on the subject. But I forgot what I changed my mind about so I won't edit my orginal thing. :)
Monday, 24 September 2007
Argument Evaluation
The middle argument- the one about the pornography law in Minnesota was the best. It set out by setting the scene, then describing the effects and then the Ordinance. It had language that flowed well and was easy to understand. The end thesis- that the law was morally sound but too broad to be put into use- is presented very efficiently. When the author first introduces us to her point of view, it comes as a bit of a shock, because she had been somewhat sympathetic to the opposite point of view up until then, in a sort of implied way. However, the author’s thesis is well-explained and the argument as a whole is pretty strong. The examples she cites are strong as well. They have to be, because the way she presents the argument, it’s almost as if she’s re-explaining herself. She states and explains the horrors of the case, then she argues against a law made to protect the victims. However, she’s either smart enough (on purpose or not) to say that she supports the idea behind the law, just not the way it is presented. In other words, she agrees with the warrant that such a law is needed. However, she disagrees that the exact law proposed is the one necessary.
Friday, 21 September 2007
Visual Argument
A visual argument can be more persuasive if done right. Some people take pictures much more seriously than words. Take the 'cruelty to animals' paragraphs we looked at yesterday. Some people might just say- 'Oh, well, that's bad, but I really like chicken and don't care'. If you showed them pictures which showed them a chicken suffering, they might feel more sympathetic towards both the cause and the chicken. Graphic pictures have a tendency to shock people into believing something.
Of course, there are a lot of variables to take into account when creating a visual argument. The book goes into great and tortuous detail about fonts and positioning and things like that. Visual arguments use little process of thought (they don't state explicitly their reasons and grounds in great detail) but rather imply what they mean. It's a little more imprecise than written argument because people might extract different things from the same argument. An example is the tomato-killing people I talked about last time. A pro-tomato enthusiast might put up a picture with a tomato bleeding juice with a knife in it. Some people would go- "OMG, the poor tomato!". Some people would get hungry and eat a tomato. Some people would think it's just weird.
But generally speaking, people who make visual arguments are able to make arguments that make sense to people.
Of course, there are a lot of variables to take into account when creating a visual argument. The book goes into great and tortuous detail about fonts and positioning and things like that. Visual arguments use little process of thought (they don't state explicitly their reasons and grounds in great detail) but rather imply what they mean. It's a little more imprecise than written argument because people might extract different things from the same argument. An example is the tomato-killing people I talked about last time. A pro-tomato enthusiast might put up a picture with a tomato bleeding juice with a knife in it. Some people would go- "OMG, the poor tomato!". Some people would get hungry and eat a tomato. Some people would think it's just weird.
But generally speaking, people who make visual arguments are able to make arguments that make sense to people.
Wednesday, 19 September 2007
Ethics of Ethos and Pathos
The Question: What ethical responsibilities does an author have in using ‘ethos’ and ‘pathos’? Does our media, or our government, often live up to those ethical expectations?
~~~
When you use ethos and pathos for an argument, in order for it to be ethical, your argument must be ethical. To you, at least. Now this is sort of obvious, but it's what the question asked. If you thought that eating tomatos was unethical, to write an argument advocating the consumption of tomatos would be unethical. The use of appealing to such powerful rhetorical devices such as ethos and pathos would not only make your argument less ethical (from the tomato-lover's point of view) but much more powerful as well.
So basically, the ethical responsibilities are to keep the argument within the bounds of moral reason.
Another thing that I believe is an ethical responsibility, though some people will disagree with me, is that in an absolutely ethical argument designed to convince, one should appeal to logos and ethos the most and leave pathos out of it as much as possible. Logic, to be truly logical, is unbiased. It is based on conclusions drawn from facts. There may be one or more conclusions drawn from said facts, but if they are presented merely as logical options, then they are not swaying you towards one or another because of feelings. If you appeal to pathos, you're then clouding the judgment with emotion, distracting and influencing you away from considering all options equally. While in an argument designed solely to convinced, it is practical to do that, however in an argument that takes into account ethics as well, it is not quite so ethical.
I hope that makes sense.
And the major, most obvious question concerning ethos is that you should not claim credibility when you don't have any. If people discover your lies and lack of credibility, they will be angry.
As for the second question- of course the media and government don't live up to those expectations. The expectations are ideals. No one or thing is perfect. The media is usually at least a little biased towards something, and the government is the most biased thing on the planet. Look at all the political issues that to be a successful politician you have to pick sides on.
~~~
When you use ethos and pathos for an argument, in order for it to be ethical, your argument must be ethical. To you, at least. Now this is sort of obvious, but it's what the question asked. If you thought that eating tomatos was unethical, to write an argument advocating the consumption of tomatos would be unethical. The use of appealing to such powerful rhetorical devices such as ethos and pathos would not only make your argument less ethical (from the tomato-lover's point of view) but much more powerful as well.
So basically, the ethical responsibilities are to keep the argument within the bounds of moral reason.
Another thing that I believe is an ethical responsibility, though some people will disagree with me, is that in an absolutely ethical argument designed to convince, one should appeal to logos and ethos the most and leave pathos out of it as much as possible. Logic, to be truly logical, is unbiased. It is based on conclusions drawn from facts. There may be one or more conclusions drawn from said facts, but if they are presented merely as logical options, then they are not swaying you towards one or another because of feelings. If you appeal to pathos, you're then clouding the judgment with emotion, distracting and influencing you away from considering all options equally. While in an argument designed solely to convinced, it is practical to do that, however in an argument that takes into account ethics as well, it is not quite so ethical.
I hope that makes sense.
And the major, most obvious question concerning ethos is that you should not claim credibility when you don't have any. If people discover your lies and lack of credibility, they will be angry.
As for the second question- of course the media and government don't live up to those expectations. The expectations are ideals. No one or thing is perfect. The media is usually at least a little biased towards something, and the government is the most biased thing on the planet. Look at all the political issues that to be a successful politician you have to pick sides on.
Tuesday, 18 September 2007
Pseudo-Argument
A pseudo-argument that I encountered in the real world was an argument about whether Macs were better than PCs. It was a pseudo-argument because it's impossible that one is better than the other. It simply depends on the preference of the person using them. People who say Macs are better are simply better suited for the features of that particular model of computer. I was on the side of PCs. Or at least on the opposite side of iBooks. There's no right or wrong answer as to which computer was better than the other. But I still argued about it. Neither of us won because neither of us could produce evidence that was capable of swaying the other to their side. In that sense, it was an unreasonable argument as well.
Appeal to Pathos
Pathos is one of the corners of the rhetorical triangle. It is the appeal to emotion. It makes the reader feel sympathetic to the writer's claims. The writer can use it by making an emotional response in the reader. For example, Michael Levin in his Torture Essay appeals to pathos by making us feel guilty about babies dying. Since the human being is influenced by emotions far more than logic in most cases, when you appeal to pathos you make a powerful argument. Sending people on guilt-trips is a good way to do this. If people believe that something is unethical, then they will disagree with it whether or not it is logical. The torture essay is an example of this- torture wasn't logical, but Levin made an excellent appeal to pathos and so loads of people agreed with him. But that isn't the only kind of appeal you can make. You can make someone feel that this argument is good because it makes you feel happy to read it. People like to feel happy. So they'll agree with you. My point is, if you can sway the person's emotions so that they believe your argument is good, then even if you make no or little sense, then people are going to start agreeing with you. Most people, anyway. At first until they look at the other sides of the triangle. Pathos is good for a first impression but fades when you read deeper.
Monday, 17 September 2007
AP Exam Fears
What scares me the most about the AP Exam is the essays. I'm not very good about writing essays within a time limit. WHen I write, I at first just write down what I think, then I edit it so it makes sense to other people. When I'm on a time constraint, there's just not time to do that. Also, I hate writing essays, especially useless ones whose only purpose is to torture us into passing an exam. Also, the essays have to be handwritten. First of all, my handwriting is terrible, especially when I start writing really fast in order to keep ip with my thoughts. I also think faster than I write so it's hard for me to keep track of my thoughts. I also have problems structuring my essays anyway, so this is worrisome.
~Edit: after talking about it in class, my fears about the essay have, um, increased. The multiple choice, fortunately, won't be too bad. Unless the course thingy is lying and deceiving us and it's really much harder but the want to fail us all ahahahahah...
sorry :)
~Edit: after talking about it in class, my fears about the essay have, um, increased. The multiple choice, fortunately, won't be too bad. Unless the course thingy is lying and deceiving us and it's really much harder but the want to fail us all ahahahahah...
sorry :)
Sunday, 9 September 2007
A Case Against Torture
Note: I have problems keeping things short. This is four five pages in Word. [Insert very bad word here].
Further Note: I figured out how to do cool font/text thingies! Yes!
Further Further Note: I think that I am guilty of using the same sarcastic rant technique that I criticised Levin for using. In my defense- I think his argument is idiotic and that makes me angry.
~
I would have to disagree with the point Michael Levin makes in 'A Case for Torture'*. I'll admit I disagreed with his point of view as I read the article, so my opinion is probably biased against him.
His arguments are full of fallacies. For one thing, he continuously repeats that there are no good grounds for not torturing his hypothetical terrorist, and that the strongest argument against torturing said terrorist is that it's a supposed infringement of human rights. That is completely untrue. The reason why torture has been discarded as a reliable way of retrieving information is because it is easy for the victim to lie about the information. Take a look at the history of torture. Let's look at King Henry VIII and the case of Mark Smeaton. Henry VIII tortured him in order to secure a confession that he had participated in an affair with Henry's wife, Anne Boleyn. He duly confessed (and revealed other 'information'), though the evidence that the affair had actually occurred was minimal. There was no reason for Smeaton to actually say that he had been involved in what was considered treason- he knew very well that that would lead to his execution (which in medieval times was almost as bad as torture, which says something). It would seem to be obvious that he would tell the truth to spare his life. But he did not. He wanted the torture to stop so badly that he, in effect, signed his own death warrant, preferring death to continued torture. He wasn't even involved in some grand idealistic scheme.**
Would a tortured terrorist today not do the same? Would they not agree that they were involved in terrorism, confirm whatever misguided notions the investigative force had about terroristic activities, etc., in order to simply stop the torture? Or if, by some chance, the police/FBI/CIA/whatever accidentally caught the wrong man and tortured him, is there not a chance that he would agree to his guilt, despite his innocence, in order to stop the torture? And a false confession/information does us no good if we, following Levin's analogy, wish to save innocent lives.
Another common lie is false information. Say, for example, that you are a terrorist. (I know it's difficult to put yourself in place of someone you (supposedly) hate, but try.) You have planted a bomb on the fourth floor of a building. The police force (or whoever) has caught you and wants to know where the bomb is so that it will be defused in order to save the building (which for some reason is unable to be evacuated). You are viciously tortured. Now, you want the torture to stop, but you also do not want to reveal the location of the bomb. So you lie and say the bomb is on the third floor. The FBI or whoever goes and finds no bomb and tortures you some more. You lie again and say the bomb's on the eightieth floor. And this goes on and on until time runs out and the bomb blow up. By then, all reason for torturing you has ended- to continue would be punishment, which Levin agrees is inhumane and useless, since it will not do anything but avenge the dead. So you aren't tortured any more. True, you're probably executed, but your mission is accomplished and you will no longer be tortured.
The best-known (albeit fictional, though I'll use it because it's well-known) example of such a thing happening is Leia's dilemma in Star Wars: A New Hope. After refusing to reveal any information under torture (another possibility- what if torture is ineffective because your hypothetical terrorist has been conditioned against it?), she is faced with a choice under the influence of what is termed 'mental torture': Give up some information, or something she cares about will bite the dust. If we put this into terroristic terms- it means divulge the location of the bomb, or be tortured (mentally or otherwise). Leia does neither- she gives false information. In terroristic terms, the terrorist says the bomb is on the ninety-first floor instead of the fourth. And we can only hope we are not as cruel as the fictional villains- who 'torture' her anyway after she gives information. (False or otherwise- they believe that it's true so there is no 'ethical' reason to torture her more.)***
The second to last argument of Levin poses these questions and 'answers' them: 'Ah, but how can the authorities ever be sure they have the right malefactor? Isn't there a danger of error and abuse? Won't 'WE' turn into 'THEM'? Questions like these are disingenuous in a world in which terrorists proclaim themselves...'
His first question can be answered thus: we cannot be sure and therefore should restrain ourselves from torturing innocents. Yes, there is a danger of BOTH error and abuse- a high one. Where are the limits? If one terrorist has one hostage, is the hostage more important than the terrorist? Why? If the hostage is a murderer? If you personally don't like the terrorist (or hostage)? Are we on a slippery slope- best explained by the oft-quoted phrase: 'The road to hell is paved by good intentions'? We might turn into them, we might already be them, or they might be us. But what I mean about all of this is that the terrorists DO NOT PROCLAIM THEMSELVES. Yes, as Levin points out, if you see masked gunmen on the news, then you know that they’re guilty. But if a terrorist leaves a bomb planted somewhere, they don’t stand out in the middle of the street and scream ‘I’M A TERRORIST, COME TORTURE ME!’. Suicide bombers may proclaim their identity, but by then it is too late, or irrelevant for torture. Even terrorists are human and try to protect their lives to the obvious extent of not walking around with a sign that says ‘Kick me, I’m a terrorist’ on their backs. (Metaphorically). And when he says ‘torture only the obviously guilty’- how do you define that? And why is he ignoring, as he himself puts it,- ‘…hard cases where the situation is murkier’?
Now, the examples above are mostly not about one painful life vs a lot of innocent dead. But they do illustrate possible ways of why torture is ineffective. Torture is torture, no matter the underlying motives. It either works or it doesn't. Michael Levin's thesis is that it does and so it should be used for good. Mine is that it doesn't work (or has a very low rate of success and a high rate of catastrophic failure) and so is useless for the cause of good.
Such scenarios are why torture was abandoned as an effective means of securing factual information.**** Indeed, the case can be made that other, legal, methods of supplying information are much better.
~
Alright, now that I've written why torture is useless and ineffective, I'll proceed to disagree with Levin on a minor point that he made, and one that has been brought up a few times. That point is the assassination of Hitler.
Unlike what some people say, Levin does agree that, had it been possible, the Allies would have assassinated Hitler and did assassinate Heydrich. His wording is a bit blurry, I admit, but this sentence shows this (underlines are my own): 'No Allied leader would have flinched at assassinating Hitler, had that been possible. (The Allies did assassinate Heydrich.)'. His next few sentences are what confuses people- ‘Americans would be angered to learn that…could have had Hitler killed in 1943…but refused on moral grounds’ which implies that this scenario did happen. As a matter of fact, it did not. Roosevelt, it could be argued, was in fact one of the minority who believed in violence/war against Hitler from the start, but since America did not wish to enter the war, he could not go against Hitler directly. If you look at a history of WWII, there were many things England, France, etc., could have done to stop WWII before it began, but did not. No matter what case you look at, Roosevelt definitely did not refuse to assassinate Hitler. Especially in 1943, when the war had been ongoing for 3 years and 3 months.*****
And it’s also ridiculous to apply assassination/pre-emptive attack to his torture case. Keep in mind that I’m not arguing that torture is immoral. (Even though I do believe that, that’s not what I’m trying to prove.) I’m trying to prove that Levin’s argument is invalid.
Levin’s reasons for advocating torture are that it would provide information/relief for the larger good. Pre-emptive attack does not provide information. A scouting mission might, but that’s not what he’s talking about. And, since Levin is being wonderfully patriotic here, so I’m assuming he means that we have the right to pre-emptively attack them. But what if we were planning on wiping out another country, by what was perceived as unprovoked by them? And they got wind of that fact and wiped out our military first? Would Levin still be in agreement that they were justified, even if their/our viewpoints differed over the provocation?
Assassination does not provide information. Dead people tell no tales, it is said. And it provides no relief. For example, if we had assassinated Hitler early on, the German people, in adoration of their ‘beloved leader’ and furious at his death, would simply have accelerated hostilities. Hitler was not the only war-mongering monster among the Nazis. True, if we had assassinated Hitler as an infant, WWII might not have happened. But how could we have known that baby Hitler would kill millions? And let’s keep practicality in mind and rule out time travel. In our time, with our capabilities, with what applies to us, how can we know in advance who will be a killer and who will not?
~
I find Levin’s argument that idealism is uncivilized very strange. Idealism is defined as: the practice of forming ideals or living under their influence.****** Ideals are: a standard of perfection, beauty, or excellence. So, he criticizes people who believe that something is perfect/excellent (and therefore right and moral) and follow through on their belief as uncivilized, barbarous, uninformed, ignorant? Since Levin obviously believes that his cause for advocating torture is right and excellent and so should therefore be followed out on, is he not an idealist? Doesn’t that mean he is accusing himself of being uncivilized?
As for his writing style, I find it full of tricks to make us believe in his argument. He pushes on the offensive throughout the whole thing, using sarcasm to bait and insult those who believe differently in attempt to send them on a guilt trip. He never presents the other side clearly and ignores obvious issues- like the ineffectiveness of torture, which has been written about by intellectuals like Cesare Beccaria. He uses deliberately vague phrasing, quick input of ideas without reflection and relies on statistically unsound information. Take for example his ‘poll’. He surveyed four people. Even the amateur statistician******* should know that four is not a factually convincing or accurate number. He also uses far too many assumptions that you are indeed believing him. His argument, in fact, is designed to convince those of his flawed thinking that they are incontrovertibly right and that others not of that thinking are immoral and wrong. Anyone who is willing to examine his argument thoroughly and with a certain amount of bias will find that he has not made any sense whatsoever.
I do believe that it is ethical to put the lives of the many before the one. I do not believe that Levin’s ideas of implanting that moral idea are workable or well-thought-out. His ‘case for torture’ is weak, flawed and full of hot air. His argument is full of holes. I cannot take him seriously when his point is irrelevant to the greater ethical issue behind it.
To clarify: if torture were an effective instrument of procuring information that would benefit the greater good, if Levin's points were valid and made sense, if what he wrote was thoughtful, unbiased and a good argument that relied on fact, not ranting accusation, then I would agree. But torture is not effective or reliable, Levin's points are invalid and do not make sense, he was not thoughtful, unbiased and he most certainly did not rely on fact. I therefore feel obliged to disagree with him.
A few people might say that an effective method of securing the truth is through the use of truth serums. In fact, such serums do not work. They only release inhibitions against speech- they do not force people to tell the truth. Indeed, some people, feeling compelled to speak, will lie, will relate events that never happened, will agree and condemn themselves if they are innocent, etc. ********
I really could go on with this, but I’ve criminally exceeded the word limit for these things by over 2,000 words, so I’ll stop writing here. In conclusion, though, I believe that Levin is seriously misinformed, has not stopped to think things through the entire way and deliberately uses clever, though not reliable (which isn’t the word I’m looking for here, but oh well) tricks to convince people who want to believe in the many over the one principle, but who cannot see how flawed his reasoning is.
***************ASTERISKS*************ARE***********COOL************
* “A Case for Torture” by Michael Levin. Printed in Newsweek in 1982. You probably knew that.
**For information on Mark Smeaton, go look up Anne Boleyn on Google, the library, etc. I forgot to keep a list of my sources.
***I could totally expand upon the reasons why the Star Wars good guys are terrorists and how good and evil in that universe are just analogies for the harder truths in our own and how we actually do support terrorists...but that has very little to do with what this reflection is supposed to be about, so I won't. XD
****This page's Q&A section is an excellent place to look at. These three sections especially:[ Are there any situations in which torture is permitted?; Shouldn't torture be permitted if its use will save lives?; Does the U.S. lose valuable information if torture is prohibited? ]: prove my point better than I can write it. It, in my opinion, completely knocks Levin off his soapbox, as well as raising a few other excellent points against the supposedly 'ethical' implementation of torture, most of which I agree with. I suggest you go check it out. It's also a less offensive and more factual way of looking at the issue than either I or Levin provided.
*****Go look it up. Really. I did because such an accusation was ludicrous. And WWII started in September, 1939. The US entered the war in Dec. 8, 1941, after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt had been trying since the war began to get the US involved in the war against Hitler, but couldn’t, since the people did not want to fight. And the US only declared war on Hitler because he was affiliated with Japan, which was behind Pearl Harbor.
****** Dude, this is way too many asterisks. Anyway, I used this dictionary: Merriam-Webster Online
******* I feel so smart for using that word….ahahahahahahahhaha
******** U.S. courts have generally ruled the use of truth serums is not a "trustworthy truth-extracting procedure" and have held evidence thus acquired is inadmissible, regardless of whether the drugs were administered voluntarily or involuntarily. E.g., Lindsey v. U.S., 237 F.2d 893, 897 (9th Cir.1956). This is from here. A confirming source is here. Or go look it up.
Further Note: I figured out how to do cool font/text thingies! Yes!
Further Further Note: I think that I am guilty of using the same sarcastic rant technique that I criticised Levin for using. In my defense- I think his argument is idiotic and that makes me angry.
~
I would have to disagree with the point Michael Levin makes in 'A Case for Torture'*. I'll admit I disagreed with his point of view as I read the article, so my opinion is probably biased against him.
His arguments are full of fallacies. For one thing, he continuously repeats that there are no good grounds for not torturing his hypothetical terrorist, and that the strongest argument against torturing said terrorist is that it's a supposed infringement of human rights. That is completely untrue. The reason why torture has been discarded as a reliable way of retrieving information is because it is easy for the victim to lie about the information. Take a look at the history of torture. Let's look at King Henry VIII and the case of Mark Smeaton. Henry VIII tortured him in order to secure a confession that he had participated in an affair with Henry's wife, Anne Boleyn. He duly confessed (and revealed other 'information'), though the evidence that the affair had actually occurred was minimal. There was no reason for Smeaton to actually say that he had been involved in what was considered treason- he knew very well that that would lead to his execution (which in medieval times was almost as bad as torture, which says something). It would seem to be obvious that he would tell the truth to spare his life. But he did not. He wanted the torture to stop so badly that he, in effect, signed his own death warrant, preferring death to continued torture. He wasn't even involved in some grand idealistic scheme.**
Would a tortured terrorist today not do the same? Would they not agree that they were involved in terrorism, confirm whatever misguided notions the investigative force had about terroristic activities, etc., in order to simply stop the torture? Or if, by some chance, the police/FBI/CIA/whatever accidentally caught the wrong man and tortured him, is there not a chance that he would agree to his guilt, despite his innocence, in order to stop the torture? And a false confession/information does us no good if we, following Levin's analogy, wish to save innocent lives.
Another common lie is false information. Say, for example, that you are a terrorist. (I know it's difficult to put yourself in place of someone you (supposedly) hate, but try.) You have planted a bomb on the fourth floor of a building. The police force (or whoever) has caught you and wants to know where the bomb is so that it will be defused in order to save the building (which for some reason is unable to be evacuated). You are viciously tortured. Now, you want the torture to stop, but you also do not want to reveal the location of the bomb. So you lie and say the bomb is on the third floor. The FBI or whoever goes and finds no bomb and tortures you some more. You lie again and say the bomb's on the eightieth floor. And this goes on and on until time runs out and the bomb blow up. By then, all reason for torturing you has ended- to continue would be punishment, which Levin agrees is inhumane and useless, since it will not do anything but avenge the dead. So you aren't tortured any more. True, you're probably executed, but your mission is accomplished and you will no longer be tortured.
The best-known (albeit fictional, though I'll use it because it's well-known) example of such a thing happening is Leia's dilemma in Star Wars: A New Hope. After refusing to reveal any information under torture (another possibility- what if torture is ineffective because your hypothetical terrorist has been conditioned against it?), she is faced with a choice under the influence of what is termed 'mental torture': Give up some information, or something she cares about will bite the dust. If we put this into terroristic terms- it means divulge the location of the bomb, or be tortured (mentally or otherwise). Leia does neither- she gives false information. In terroristic terms, the terrorist says the bomb is on the ninety-first floor instead of the fourth. And we can only hope we are not as cruel as the fictional villains- who 'torture' her anyway after she gives information. (False or otherwise- they believe that it's true so there is no 'ethical' reason to torture her more.)***
The second to last argument of Levin poses these questions and 'answers' them: 'Ah, but how can the authorities ever be sure they have the right malefactor? Isn't there a danger of error and abuse? Won't 'WE' turn into 'THEM'? Questions like these are disingenuous in a world in which terrorists proclaim themselves...'
His first question can be answered thus: we cannot be sure and therefore should restrain ourselves from torturing innocents. Yes, there is a danger of BOTH error and abuse- a high one. Where are the limits? If one terrorist has one hostage, is the hostage more important than the terrorist? Why? If the hostage is a murderer? If you personally don't like the terrorist (or hostage)? Are we on a slippery slope- best explained by the oft-quoted phrase: 'The road to hell is paved by good intentions'? We might turn into them, we might already be them, or they might be us. But what I mean about all of this is that the terrorists DO NOT PROCLAIM THEMSELVES. Yes, as Levin points out, if you see masked gunmen on the news, then you know that they’re guilty. But if a terrorist leaves a bomb planted somewhere, they don’t stand out in the middle of the street and scream ‘I’M A TERRORIST, COME TORTURE ME!’. Suicide bombers may proclaim their identity, but by then it is too late, or irrelevant for torture. Even terrorists are human and try to protect their lives to the obvious extent of not walking around with a sign that says ‘Kick me, I’m a terrorist’ on their backs. (Metaphorically). And when he says ‘torture only the obviously guilty’- how do you define that? And why is he ignoring, as he himself puts it,- ‘…hard cases where the situation is murkier’?
Now, the examples above are mostly not about one painful life vs a lot of innocent dead. But they do illustrate possible ways of why torture is ineffective. Torture is torture, no matter the underlying motives. It either works or it doesn't. Michael Levin's thesis is that it does and so it should be used for good. Mine is that it doesn't work (or has a very low rate of success and a high rate of catastrophic failure) and so is useless for the cause of good.
Such scenarios are why torture was abandoned as an effective means of securing factual information.**** Indeed, the case can be made that other, legal, methods of supplying information are much better.
~
Alright, now that I've written why torture is useless and ineffective, I'll proceed to disagree with Levin on a minor point that he made, and one that has been brought up a few times. That point is the assassination of Hitler.
Unlike what some people say, Levin does agree that, had it been possible, the Allies would have assassinated Hitler and did assassinate Heydrich. His wording is a bit blurry, I admit, but this sentence shows this (underlines are my own): 'No Allied leader would have flinched at assassinating Hitler, had that been possible. (The Allies did assassinate Heydrich.)'. His next few sentences are what confuses people- ‘Americans would be angered to learn that…could have had Hitler killed in 1943…but refused on moral grounds’ which implies that this scenario did happen. As a matter of fact, it did not. Roosevelt, it could be argued, was in fact one of the minority who believed in violence/war against Hitler from the start, but since America did not wish to enter the war, he could not go against Hitler directly. If you look at a history of WWII, there were many things England, France, etc., could have done to stop WWII before it began, but did not. No matter what case you look at, Roosevelt definitely did not refuse to assassinate Hitler. Especially in 1943, when the war had been ongoing for 3 years and 3 months.*****
And it’s also ridiculous to apply assassination/pre-emptive attack to his torture case. Keep in mind that I’m not arguing that torture is immoral. (Even though I do believe that, that’s not what I’m trying to prove.) I’m trying to prove that Levin’s argument is invalid.
Levin’s reasons for advocating torture are that it would provide information/relief for the larger good. Pre-emptive attack does not provide information. A scouting mission might, but that’s not what he’s talking about. And, since Levin is being wonderfully patriotic here, so I’m assuming he means that we have the right to pre-emptively attack them. But what if we were planning on wiping out another country, by what was perceived as unprovoked by them? And they got wind of that fact and wiped out our military first? Would Levin still be in agreement that they were justified, even if their/our viewpoints differed over the provocation?
Assassination does not provide information. Dead people tell no tales, it is said. And it provides no relief. For example, if we had assassinated Hitler early on, the German people, in adoration of their ‘beloved leader’ and furious at his death, would simply have accelerated hostilities. Hitler was not the only war-mongering monster among the Nazis. True, if we had assassinated Hitler as an infant, WWII might not have happened. But how could we have known that baby Hitler would kill millions? And let’s keep practicality in mind and rule out time travel. In our time, with our capabilities, with what applies to us, how can we know in advance who will be a killer and who will not?
~
I find Levin’s argument that idealism is uncivilized very strange. Idealism is defined as: the practice of forming ideals or living under their influence.****** Ideals are: a standard of perfection, beauty, or excellence. So, he criticizes people who believe that something is perfect/excellent (and therefore right and moral) and follow through on their belief as uncivilized, barbarous, uninformed, ignorant? Since Levin obviously believes that his cause for advocating torture is right and excellent and so should therefore be followed out on, is he not an idealist? Doesn’t that mean he is accusing himself of being uncivilized?
As for his writing style, I find it full of tricks to make us believe in his argument. He pushes on the offensive throughout the whole thing, using sarcasm to bait and insult those who believe differently in attempt to send them on a guilt trip. He never presents the other side clearly and ignores obvious issues- like the ineffectiveness of torture, which has been written about by intellectuals like Cesare Beccaria. He uses deliberately vague phrasing, quick input of ideas without reflection and relies on statistically unsound information. Take for example his ‘poll’. He surveyed four people. Even the amateur statistician******* should know that four is not a factually convincing or accurate number. He also uses far too many assumptions that you are indeed believing him. His argument, in fact, is designed to convince those of his flawed thinking that they are incontrovertibly right and that others not of that thinking are immoral and wrong. Anyone who is willing to examine his argument thoroughly and with a certain amount of bias will find that he has not made any sense whatsoever.
I do believe that it is ethical to put the lives of the many before the one. I do not believe that Levin’s ideas of implanting that moral idea are workable or well-thought-out. His ‘case for torture’ is weak, flawed and full of hot air. His argument is full of holes. I cannot take him seriously when his point is irrelevant to the greater ethical issue behind it.
To clarify: if torture were an effective instrument of procuring information that would benefit the greater good, if Levin's points were valid and made sense, if what he wrote was thoughtful, unbiased and a good argument that relied on fact, not ranting accusation, then I would agree. But torture is not effective or reliable, Levin's points are invalid and do not make sense, he was not thoughtful, unbiased and he most certainly did not rely on fact. I therefore feel obliged to disagree with him.
A few people might say that an effective method of securing the truth is through the use of truth serums. In fact, such serums do not work. They only release inhibitions against speech- they do not force people to tell the truth. Indeed, some people, feeling compelled to speak, will lie, will relate events that never happened, will agree and condemn themselves if they are innocent, etc. ********
I really could go on with this, but I’ve criminally exceeded the word limit for these things by over 2,000 words, so I’ll stop writing here. In conclusion, though, I believe that Levin is seriously misinformed, has not stopped to think things through the entire way and deliberately uses clever, though not reliable (which isn’t the word I’m looking for here, but oh well) tricks to convince people who want to believe in the many over the one principle, but who cannot see how flawed his reasoning is.
***************ASTERISKS*************ARE***********COOL************
* “A Case for Torture” by Michael Levin. Printed in Newsweek in 1982. You probably knew that.
**For information on Mark Smeaton, go look up Anne Boleyn on Google, the library, etc. I forgot to keep a list of my sources.
***I could totally expand upon the reasons why the Star Wars good guys are terrorists and how good and evil in that universe are just analogies for the harder truths in our own and how we actually do support terrorists...but that has very little to do with what this reflection is supposed to be about, so I won't. XD
****This page's Q&A section is an excellent place to look at. These three sections especially:[ Are there any situations in which torture is permitted?; Shouldn't torture be permitted if its use will save lives?; Does the U.S. lose valuable information if torture is prohibited? ]: prove my point better than I can write it. It, in my opinion, completely knocks Levin off his soapbox, as well as raising a few other excellent points against the supposedly 'ethical' implementation of torture, most of which I agree with. I suggest you go check it out. It's also a less offensive and more factual way of looking at the issue than either I or Levin provided.
*****Go look it up. Really. I did because such an accusation was ludicrous. And WWII started in September, 1939. The US entered the war in Dec. 8, 1941, after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt had been trying since the war began to get the US involved in the war against Hitler, but couldn’t, since the people did not want to fight. And the US only declared war on Hitler because he was affiliated with Japan, which was behind Pearl Harbor.
****** Dude, this is way too many asterisks. Anyway, I used this dictionary: Merriam-Webster Online
******* I feel so smart for using that word….ahahahahahahahhaha
******** U.S. courts have generally ruled the use of truth serums is not a "trustworthy truth-extracting procedure" and have held evidence thus acquired is inadmissible, regardless of whether the drugs were administered voluntarily or involuntarily. E.g., Lindsey v. U.S., 237 F.2d 893, 897 (9th Cir.1956). This is from here. A confirming source is here. Or go look it up.
Wednesday, 5 September 2007
Ad and Cartoon
The ad is against genetic altering of foods. The cartoon is for it. The ad uses scare tactics like printing disturbing answers on the picture of the can. It states clearly what it thinks is wrong with biotech foods and orders us to take action. It’s an ad which means that its purpose is to interest and enlist people in it. It this time is taking action for labeling of genetically modified foods. The cartoon pokes fun i.e. mocks people. It shows a large self-righteous hippie withholding a fat ear of corn from a starving poor man. The hippie, who represents those opponents of biotech foods, is using his stand on the issue to prevent people from eating foods that might potentially be bad for you. But the catoonist is showing that the good of such foods can outweigh the bad; in this instance the starving man would much rather have biotech food than starve to death. The cartoon mocks the fallacies of the opposing side; the ad highlights the dangers of the issue and asks for action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
