In general, analyzing torture is controversial, but I firmly believe the use of torture is solely situational. You must consider many factors of why it could be effective, who you are effecting, and if the torture is worth the greater result. Each circumstance requires a vast amount of examination; although many times where it could be effective the time is limited and analysis is not an option. Morality is also a major key in applying torture, you must consider whether injuring someone else is making you also in the wrong or if the greater good of the people will be helped.
Levin’s interpretation of torture is hard to disagree with. He uses dramatic situations and harsh conditions that support his opinion. When he presents his reader with circumstances such as mass amounts of babies dying and the alternative is torturing someone and the result will change it is impossible to not agree. He exaggerates his examples allowing no other option but to agree.
I believe that if torture is the ONLY option to save lives in mass amounts, then it should be enforced. Every situation requires interpretation and a long analysis of the benefits. To risk someone else’s life for another you must know and be 100% sure that the torture is worth it.