Article by Michael Levin on "The Case of Torture". is an article that mainly discusses the use of torture as necessary and important to safeguard the lives of many innocent people and society and, as justifiable. In one of his examples, he verbally states that the mass murder of millions of innocent people by a terrorist justifies resorting to an act of torture to stop such a brutal and barbaric act. This is a question of ethics on the action of devastation. We have to look at the scenario of a war. People will never say that it is immoral or wrong to let our soldiers kill or inflict pain on enemies in a war because we know that it is the only way to guarantee and safeguard the freedom of our nation and the lives of our fellow citizens. the reasons are very clear as mentioned in the article. So it is justifiable to let our soldiers kill those who want to harm the lives of our people. When a terrorist clearly wants to harm the lives of millions of people, why is it not justified to inflict pain on him, with the aim of wanting to protect and secure the lives of many more innocent people? It's definitely the right decision! Now you can consider this argument: The US Constitution protects the interest of one's rights but torturing a person is a violation of the law which does not protect the interests. Therefore torture is illegitimate. Torture, however, is an illegal act only when the underlying purpose is deemed reasonably immoral. You should therefore not inflict pain just to pressure the other party into confessing the truth about a matter if you do not wish to do so. But what if the truth then led to the location of, for example, a bomb, which could then spread over time and...... middle of paper......in due time. We should all know the truth and actually accept orders under torture. If people reject the author's argument and we do everything we can to pressure them into the truth, we may get it as the probability must have been higher due to the accuracy of the agencies' information. In conclusion, I believe that, in the end, the argument for torture is an acceptable exercise as long as it satisfies the concept of "moral or character standards..." as a whole. There will be no clear answer as to “whether torture was right or wrong.” It will be a question that will continue to be applied to humanity if they decide to get final approval. Until then, we should continue to balance innocent lives with the means intended to save them. regarding attention to morality