Libertarian views? V. English Assignment Help

ArrestMeRedZ28 · 03-11-2008, 03:38 PM

Hey, I was looking for some help with my English Assignment.

I have to rebut a editorial out of my book. It is on Torture.

The author is known for Libertarian views. It was published in June 7, '82. He is also a professor of Philosophy at City College of New York.

He claims that "there are situations in which torture is not merely permissible but morally mandatory."

He writes about cases where terrorists should be tortured in an effort to defuse bombs before they go off, etc. Claiming that, "millions of lives surely outweigh unconstitutionality" and tat "balancing innocent lives against the means needed to save them."

He also uses this situation in support of his argument.
- A terrorist group kidnapped a newborn baby from the hospital.
- He asked 4 mothers if they would approve torturing the kidnappers if it were necessary to get THEIR OWN newborns back.

The author claims that "[a terrorists] volunteered for the risks of his deed." and that they have put themselves at risk, and that torture should be for "the obviously guilty, and only for the sake of saving innocents."

Now, I semi-agree with his views, however the assignment is to REBUT the editorial and find flaws with his reasoning/claims/support/etc.

I was wondering how I could go about rebutting it based on his political views and being so out of date (ex. views have changed since September 11th)

I also feel that I can rebut the extreme cases in some of his situations he has made. Such as, obviously the PARENTS want their kids back, however they don't represent the views of america as a public. etc.

Feel free to comment on the libertarian views or any other ideas to help me rebut the editorial.

WickedLou9 · 03-11-2008, 03:56 PM

First of all the situation with the mothers is flawed. It's flawed because it's an appeal to emotion not to logic. It also assumes that the ONLY way to get the information is through torture which is argueable and most likely not true.

It has also been shown that torture does not produce reliable information as the subject of the torture will often tell you whatever they think you want to hear so that the torture will stop.
I think the arguement that the terrorists signed up knowing the risks is also an arguement against torture. THey know that they might be subject to this, often times they are willing to give thier own lives to further thier cause. Torture may not be a threat for them and they might just lie to you to get the torture to stop.

I think that in theoretical terms if there was a ticking nuclear bomb underneath Giants stadium during a game and they had the culprit in custody and were trying to get the code from him to disarm the bomb.. In that impossibly unlikely Jack Bauer type of situation torture would be ok. BUt really what guarantees you that the person will give you the right code?They might make up codes until either the torture stops or the bomb goes off.

Torture is also counter productive in the sense that it creates a negative image of the "big bad evil US" that captures and tortures people. This serves as a recruitment tool for terrorists and the growth of terrorism as a result would not be outweighed by any questionable information obtained by torture.

The author makes too many assumptions.
1) Torture is never the only way to get information.
2) The information is never very good
3) the person may be willing to die anyway and you waste valueable time torturing when you could be trying other methods
4) It is counter productive in that it aids terrorists in recruiting more participants to thier cause.

Publius · 03-11-2008, 04:03 PM

That author is making some extremely nonlibertarian arguments, who is it?

ArrestMeRedZ28 · 03-11-2008, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

First of all the situation with the mothers is flawed. It's flawed because it's an appeal to emotion not to logic. It also assumes that the ONLY way to get the information is through torture which is argueable and most likely not true.

It has also been shown that torture does not produce reliable information as the subject of the torture will often tell you whatever they think you want to hear so that the torture will stop.
I think the arguement that the terrorists signed up knowing the risks is also an arguement against torture. THey know that they might be subject to this, often times they are willing to give thier own lives to further thier cause. Torture may not be a threat for them and they might just lie to you to get the torture to stop.

I think that in theoretical terms if there was a ticking nuclear bomb underneath Giants stadium during a game and they had the culprit in custody and were trying to get the code from him to disarm the bomb.. In that impossibly unlikely Jack Bauer type of situation torture would be ok. BUt really what guarantees you that the person will give you the right code?They might make up codes until either the torture stops or the bomb goes off.

Torture is also counter productive in the sense that it creates a negative image of the "big bad evil US" that captures and tortures people. This serves as a recruitment tool for terrorists and the growth of terrorism as a result would not be outweighed by any questionable information obtained by torture.

The author makes too many assumptions.
1) Torture is never the only way to get information.
2) The information is never very good
3) the person may be willing to die anyway and you waste valueable time torturing when you could be trying other methods
4) It is counter productive in that it aids terrorists in recruiting more participants to thier cause.

Yeah, I know it's an appeal to emotion. Obviously a new mother is going to give the world for her baby.

Thanks for the idea about the reliability of torture, I'll try to find info/sources for my counter-argument.

And I was definitely going to attack his dramatic "atomic bomb on Manhattan Island" situation as much as possible calling it a outstretch, and claiming there are many other solutions such as a bomb squad, and evacuating the area.

But thanks, definitely got my mind moving a bit more.

ArrestMeRedZ28 · 03-11-2008, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

That author is making some extremely nonlibertarian arguments, who is it?

The piece is called "The Case for Torture" by Michael Levin. It is in my "Writing Arguments" book required for ENGL 200.

Please expand, why are his arguements nonlibertarian? It clearly states that "He is known for his libertarian views and..."

Publius · 03-11-2008, 04:08 PM

I found it, Michael Levin... Yea, I've always been extremely

about the fact that the Mises institute allows him to publish for them. He is a piss poor excuse for a libertarian.

Publius · 03-11-2008, 04:12 PM

Libertarianism is built upon a foundation of freedom and non coercion, by the government and by other entities. Torture is itself a coercive act, and one which further ignores the rights and liberties basic to all human beings under the libertarian belief in natural rights.

Torture used by a government entity also expands the power of government to control behavior, because even just the threat of torture is enough to make most people fall into line and stop doing whatever it is the government wants them to stop (or start doing something the government wants them to do). This is the opposite of the libertarian belief in limited government which is uninvolved in your daily activities.

WickedLou9 · 03-11-2008, 04:18 PM

I would make sure to hit on the false choices. He offers many of them. Would you allow millions of people to die or would you torture someone?

That's a false choice. Those are not your only two choices. You could try and evacuate and save anyone you can. You could try and diffuse the bomb on your own. You could try and contain the blast with some sort of shield.Whatever. There are many choices here. Each with degrees of success and each with a cost. He presents to you a false choice of total success or total failure. That's simply not realistic.

ArrestMeRedZ28 · 03-11-2008, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

I found it, Michael Levin... Yea, I've always been extremely about the fact that the Mises institute allows him to publish for them. He is a piss poor excuse for a libertarian.

Yeah, I didn't have much choice on the editorial to respond to. It was this or "Statement Regarding Hearing on Welfare and Marriage Issues"

ArrestMeRedZ28 · 03-11-2008, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Those are not your only two choices. You could try and evacuate and save anyone you can. You could try and diffuse the bomb on your own. You could try and contain the blast with some sort of shield.Whatever. There are many choices here. Each with degrees of success and each with a cost. He presents to you a false choice of total success or total failure. That's simply not realistic.

I concur.

Publius · 03-11-2008, 04:26 PM

It's hard to link a specific tenet of libertarian thought to refute his argument, because the whole idea of coercion through torture goes against the entire libertarian viewpoint.

ArrestMeRedZ28 · 03-11-2008, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

It's hard to link a specific tenet of libertarian thought to refute his argument, because the whole idea of coercion through torture goes against the entire libertarian viewpoint.

So, basically, his whole paper is questionable because he's arguing against his views it would seem. Makes me question the credibility of his arguments.

Publius · 03-11-2008, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by ArrestMeRedZ28

So, basically, his whole paper is questionable because he's arguing against his views it would seem. Makes me question the credibility of his arguments.

He isn't arguing against his views, he's arguing against what he thinks represents his views but in reality is quite different. Levin is a neo-conservative and a racist, not a libertarian.

ArrestMeRedZ28 · 03-11-2008, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

He isn't arguing against his views, he's arguing against what he thinks represents his views but in reality is quite different. Levin is a neo-conservative and a racist, not a libertarian.

It states in my book that he is known for his libertarian views, and his outspoken stance on feminism and race.

I could do the satire approach and claim the whole paper is racist and blaming middle eastern terrorists.

kombayn · 03-11-2008, 09:44 PM

I think WickedLou made one of the best points, the mothers will do anything for the newborn but how do you know they just don't tell you what you want to hear?

We need to invest more in a our programs that handle bomb-threats so they can disarm them in a case where the terrorist lies to you. Why wouldn't he? He's going to jail anyways.

Second, why wouldn't you do something more fucked up such as Pee or Crap on him? I mean that's torture but I'm sure a guy getting crapped on would rather tell you how to get the bomb before being crapped on.

In the end, our security forces should be better trained to handle the situation, we have bomb-sniffing dogs and other tools (nightvision, I'm sure other government crap that we don't have yet) to get rid of this stuff. I would honestly go to a message board dedicated to stuff like this to get your arguments.

As for the guy preaching this "Libertarian" shit, he isn't libertarian, Libertarian's wouldn't torturer.