Running Head THE TOULMIN ESSAY .docx

Running Head: THE TOULMIN ESSAY
Hurley 1
THE TOULMIN ESSAY
Hurley 8
Essay 2 Rubric
Essay 2 Rubric:
100 Possible Points
Category
Met:
Partly Met:
Did Not Meet:
Comments
Organization (15 pts)
The essay was logically organized, including an introduction
paragraph, conclusion paragraph, a thesis statement, body
paragraphs, and topic sentences
The organization of this essay caused some confusion to the
reader or did not include all of the required components
The essay was very poorly organized making it hard for the
reader to follow progression of the essay
Topic Choice: (15pts)
A topic of local interest or a larger topic with a local angle was
discussed
N/A
The topic of the paper was inappropriate to the assignment
specifications and did not meet the requirements of the prompt.
Content: (20 pts)
The paper was written as a Toulmin-style argumentative essay

that included support for your claim, an explanation of opposing
views, and a rebuttal of those views
The content was fairly strong but did not have enough
development or did not stay on topic
The content of the paper was inappropriate to the topic and did
not meet the requirements of the prompt.
Mechanics (15 pts)
Proper grammar and spelling were used throughout the
assignment. MLA formatting was used throughout.
Your grammar, spelling, and citations looked pretty good, but
were some issues, specifically:
The assignment had many grammatical and spelling issues that
hindered the ability of the reader to understand the essay.
Proper citation was not used throughout the essay
Please see my comments below
Length (15 pts)
The content was at least 1,000 words in length
The essay was well over the length requirements of 1000-1300
words long
The content was less than the requirements of 1,000 words in
length
Outside Sources: (15pts)
At least two appropriate outside sources were used in this essay.
An outside source was included but was not an appropriate
choice or only one outside source was used
No outside sources were used.
Cover Letter (5 pts)
All six questions were answered and the letter was included as
part of the submission of the assignment
The letter was included with the essay but the questions did not
receive full responses
The letter was not included with the submission of the essay

95/100 Overall, you did a good job on this assignment. You
wrote a persuasive essay about a topic of local interest, using
the Toulmin style argument. In your argument, you included
your initial claim, support for your claim, an explanation of the
opposing viewpoint, and a rebuttal against that argument. Your
essay was at least 1,000 words. Your essay fully explored your
topic. Your essay was well-organized and included a thesis
statement. Your mechanics were pretty well on target (though I
made a few notes below), and you included your cover letter at
the end of your essay. I enjoyed reading your essay.
Mike Hurley (4082106)
Professor Amy Sloan
ENGL 102 Effectiveness in Writing
9 April 2012
The Toulmin Essay Cover Letter
1) The purpose of this essay was to conduct research and
complete writing about a topic of local interest, or of taking a
national or global topic and finding a local angle on it. By
completing this argumentative approach on a topic of interest
will allow the reader to see both the claim and warrant for the
argument? If the claim and warrant are successful, one could
only hope that the reader would be able to take valuable insight
into the topic. 2) From completing this assignment I have
learned a few new terms and meanings which I can now apply to
my reading and writing that will help me better present the
purpose and intention for the writing. 3) In the beginning of the
assignment I was dreadful of the task at hand but as the
information unfolded, it began to make more sense and I was
able to better understand the concept. The difficulties that I had
we’re how do I accomplish this and where do I begin. The
annotated bibliography was also very frustrating on
understanding the intent and purpose of having it if a works
cited is included. In my opinion this was “over-kill” and has
taught me nothing except to hate writing even more. 4) Mostly
I did not enjoy anything about this assignment as I do not like
arguments and try to avoid them at all cost and I do not like to

write and am only taking this class to meet a requirement for
my BS. 5) I decided to write about this topic because it is a big
issue in the news today in the area where I am stationed and is
causing a lot of commotion.
Annotated Bibliography
Garrison, Joey. Police, Fire Departments ask mayor for sizable
budget expansions (26 March 2012). Retrieved from
http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/police-fire-
departments-ask-mayor-sizable-budget-expansions
This article discusses the current issue with a federal grant that
Nashville Metro received as part of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009. It lists the details of the grant and
concerns now that the funds are mostly exhausted.
Grants.gov. What is a Grant?. Retrieved from
http://www.grants.gov/aboutgrants/grants.jsp
This website explains what a grant it, what the process of filling
and applying for a grant entails, and the also explains the
history of the grant program. The grants website is also for
both grantors of the funds as well as those businesses, agencies,
and offices applying for the grant as a one-stop-shop forsay.
Hacker, Diana. A Pocket Style Manual, 6/e. Boston:
Bedford/St. Martins, 2009.
This pocket style manual identifies the major steps of clarity,
grammar, punctuation and mechanics. It also helps in
developing well-researched and well-written papers, memo’s,
essays and etc. Examples of each document are also included in
the text as practical guides.
Recovery.org. Track the Money: The Recovery Act. Retrieved
from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.pdf
This website and Bill in particular defines every aspect of the
recovery and reinvestment that President Obama signed into
law. It goes as far as determining who receives the funds, when
they will receive the funds and how much they will receive.
COPS.usdoj.gov. Retrieved from

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/DOJRecoveryReportingWebinar
9-10-09.pdf
This website and article discusses the preparation for the federal
grant that Nashville Metro received. It also discussed the
calculating of jobs data and data elements for the creation of the
new officer positions. Lastly it discussed the ins and outs of
submitting and reviewing reports and the releasing of data.
Consequences of Accepting Federal Grants
What is a federal grant? First of all, grants are not
benefits or even entitlements nor are they assistance or loans to
individuals. According to Grants.gov, “a federal grant is an
award of financial assistance that is given from an agency to a
recipient in order to carry out a public purpose of either support
or stimulation that has been authorized by a law.” Two years
ago President Obama approved the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, Bill 111 for the purpose of: “(1) To
preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery. (2) To
assist those most impacted by the recession. (3) To provide
investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring
technological advances in science and health. (4) To invest in
transportation, environmental protection, and other
infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits. (5)
To stabilize State and local government budgets, in order to
minimize and avoid reductions in essential services and
counterproductive state and local tax increases.” (Bill 111 H.R.
1, pg 1-2). As you can see this Bill is very importance, but
what it does not tell you are what happens after the grant funds
are exhausted. In this essay, Nashville Metro will be discussed
in particular concerning a grant that they had received through
this act to create jobs. Not just any jobs, but police officer jobs
and now Nashville Metro has a budget crisis on their hands.
The situation will be explained as well as a few solutions that
could potentially help or resolve the issues at hand.
Comment by Amy Sloan:
Be careful not to overuse sources. Remember that the majority

of any academic essay should come from your own ideas with
no more than 20% of any essay coming from outside source
material. Comment by Amy Sloan:
In formal academic essays, you must always avoid directly
referencing the audience, which means avoiding words such as
"you" and "yours." Comment by Amy Sloan:
This is a capitalization error. Only proper nouns should be
capitalized in addition to the first words of sentences and
words in titles. Refer to this cite for help with capitalization:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/592/1/ Comment by
Amy Sloan:
This comma is unnecessary and should be removed. Remember
that not all natural pauses in speech indicate that a comma
should be inserted. Instead, refer to the rules of grammar for
guidance on when to use commas. Comment by Amy Sloan:
You are missing a comma here that is necessary for the sentence
to be correctly punctuated. Refer to this resource for guidance
on comma rules:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/02/
My claim that I want to make is that within Tennessee alone,
federal assistance grants have now been exhausted and Congress
plans to cut and reduce future grants as well and leave it up to
the states to resolve the issues that have been temporarily fixed
by approving grants. The issue of cut and reduced future grants
creates an exigence and large concern for Tennessee and other
states alike. The reason behind this could be because of the
dependency placed on receiving these grants at the time of
approval of the grants. More and more, businesses, agencies,
and companies are relying on federal grants to pull them out of
a bind. When will this all stop? One federal grant that has been
in the news lately is the Nashville Metro federal grant that is
stirring up potential property tax increases. This federal grant
was approved as part of the “American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 that created 50 new police officer
positions and has paid their salaries and benefits for the past 3
years.” (Garrison) Those 50 new police officer jobs that were

created ultimately lead to better crime fighting and prevention
in the Nashville Metro area. According to COPS and the United
States Department of Justice websites, “Nashville had received
$8.6 million in federal grant money that has paid for the 50 new
officer positions benefits and salaries for going on three years
now.” The three years will be up in July 2012 and as a result
Nashville Metropolitan government will be responsible for
absorbing this cost that was never budgeted or mentioned during
the beginning stages of the approval process. Now, Nashville
Metropolitan is looking at trying to find ways to pay for these
positions that were part of President Obama’s American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Comment by Amy
Sloan:
This is a run-on sentence, which means that it is two
independently clauses that were not correctly joined together.
Review this website for more help with run-on sentences:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/598/02/ Comment by
Amy Sloan:
In formal academic essays, it is important to avoid using the
first person, which includes any reference to yourself, such as
"I," "me," "us," "we," etc. Comment by Amy Sloan:
Be careful not to overuse sources. Remember that the majority
of any academic essay should come from your own ideas with
no more than 20% of any essay coming from outside source
material.
So how does Nashville plan to handle the issue of an exhausted
federal grant? One potential solution that Mayor Dean is
looking hard at doing is to increase taxes for the Nashville
Tennessee area. The tax increase is focused mainly on
increasing property tax alone. This has the people of Nashville
heated and upset. This solution could have potentially grave
damage to the Metro area as well. Also, with a declining
economy, huge deficit that continues to grow, and forced
Obama-care, the people just do not know, if Mayor Dean
approves the tax increase, how they will make ends meet.
Another potential solution is for Nashville Metropolitan

Department to seek out additional or ask for additional funding
through an extension of the already approved grant. Without a
doubt, the federal grant has enhanced the Nashville Metro area
crime fighting and prevention efforts but dependencies on
grants are becoming a norm. However, an extension would
allow for Mayor Dean and the Nashville Metro Department to
properly budget for those 50 new positions in order to meet
year-end strengths and remain within the budget so that they
would no longer have to rely on the federal grant funds. Lastly,
at a last resort solution, those 50 new positions would have to
be either eliminated or other areas be cut in order to allow the
new officer positions to become permanent. By doing this, the
improved crime prevention over the course of the last three
years could ultimately pay the consequences if they are
eliminated or other areas would then suffer and be handed
additional consequences. Either way, this solution would not go
good with either solution enforced. Comment by Amy Sloan:
on comma rules:
In conclusion consequences of accepting federal grants are not
to be taken lightly and all the risks associated with each grants
should be scrutinized before acceptance. If Congress does cut or
scale back federal grants in the future, now is the time that
government businesses, agencies and companies attempt to get a
clear visual of where they are headed and not rely on federal
grants like they are now. However, Bill 111 stated that the bill
will accomplish the following: “To stabilize State and local
government budgets, in order to minimize and avoid reductions
in essential services and counterproductive state and local tax
increases.” (Bill 111 H.R. 1, pg 1-2). This purpose is the
driving factor behind many government businesses, agencies
and companies relying so heavily on the federal grants.
Because of this, Nashville Metro increased the local police
force by 50 officers that has definitely made an impact on the

crime fighting and prevention rate or Mayor Dean would not
want to keep them on permanently. As such, if you look at
other cities across the country you can see that by a reduce
police force they suffer from higher crime rates which is the
major consequence that Nashville Metro would have on their
hands if the solutions mentioned above are not handled or acted
on accordingly. Comment by Amy Sloan:
on comma rules:
Works Cited
Garrison, Joey. Police, Fire Departments ask mayor for sizable
budget expansions (26 March 2012). Retrieved from
http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/police-fire-
departments-ask-mayor-sizable-budget-expansions
Grants.gov. What is a Grant?. Retrieved from
http://www.grants.gov/aboutgrants/grants.jsp
Hacker, Diana. A Pocket Style Manual, 6/e. Boston:
Bedford/St. Martins, 2009.
Recovery.org. Track the Money: The Recovery Act. Retrieved
from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.pdf
COPS.usdoj.gov. Retrieved from
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/DOJRecoveryReportingWebinar
9-10-09.pdf
· Assignment List
· Assignment 3: Toulmin Essay
Assignment 3: Toulmin Essay
DUE: Feb 9, 2014 11:55 PM
Grade Details
Grade
N/A
Gradebook Comments

None
Assignment Details
Open Date
Feb 3, 2014 12:00 AM
Graded?
Yes
Points Possible
100.0
Resubmissions Allowed?
No
Attachments checked for originality?
Yes
Top of Form
Assignment Instructions
Instructions: Please carefully read the following assignment
details in its entirety. There are many components to this
particular assignment, and each component is graded.
This essay should be between 900 and 1000 words. It must
include an annotated bibliography.
The Toulmin essay will help you practice what you have learned
so far in this course. First, you will choose a topic of interest.
Make sure that you choose a topic with two opposing sides.
Then, you need to research that topic in order to specify the
topic’s scope, so it can be easily discussed in 1000 word essay.
For example, you may be interested in learning more about
traffic issues in the United States. However, that topic is too
large to cover in a 1000 word essay. After researching peer
reviewed articles that discuss US traffic issues in general, you
may discover that the metro system in the District of Columbia
is underfunded and underutilized. Through your research, you
found that you could make a claim that more funds should be
made available in order to upgrade the metro system, which
would improve traffic issues in the District of Columbia. This

would make for a stronger, specific argument.
The following overused topics may not be used in your essay:
gun control,
abortion,
capital punishment,
gay marriage,
gays in the military,
mandatory drug testing,
euthanasia,
childhood obesity,
women in the military,
diets (including the Palio diet),
workout regiments (including CrossFit),
underage drinking,
and the legalization of marijuana.
This essay must include a minimum of five sources.Three
should peer-reviewed sources, preferably from the APUS
databases. You may use eBooks; however, as discussed in your
textbook, books generally are not as current as peer-reviewed
articles. You may also use primary sources (interviews,
statistics, etc); however, these primary sources should be
obtained from experts within that field. If you cannot find
strong sources for your chosen topic, then change your topic. If
you have a question about the validity of a source, please email
me, or post your question to the open forum.
Make sure to include the following sections in your essay:
an introduction and claim,
background,
body,
and a conclusion.

Within the body of your essay, make sure to include the
following in any order:
support for your claim,
opposing or alternate views,
scholarly research,
and rebuttals.
After you have written your essay, please make sure to revise
the content of your essay. Lastly, be sure to edit your essay by
checking grammar, format, and smaller technical details. Please
make sure your essay is written in third person.
The Annotated Bibliography
An annotated Bibliography (AB) is due with your Toulmin
essay. Using the MLA guide, list each source as it will appear
on the Works Cited page of your essay. In two to three
sentences summarize the text. I will be checking for grammar as
well. This is what makes it an “annotated” bibliography. A
sample is shown below.
Annotated Bibliography (Centered)
Clark, Irene L. The Genre of Argument. Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt Brace, 1998. Print.
Clark's textbook identifies the major steps to developing a well-
researched and well-written argumentative essay. Professional
essays are included in the text as models.
Ward, Russ. Logical Argument in the Research Paper. Fort
Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace, 1997. Print.
Augmenting the steps to writing an argumentative research
paper is information about proper documentation. The Toulmin

System, an important aspect of a well-planned paper, should be
studied carefully.
Submission Instructions: Please submit this through the
assignments link in the classroom. This assignment is due on
Sunday, by 11:55 p.m., ET.
Bottom of Form
j#{StudentSubmis
false
false
false
j#{StudentSubmis
_____________________________________________________
__________
_____________________________________________________
__________
Report Information from ProQuest
February 05 2014 15:02
_____________________________________________________
__________
05 February 2014 ProQuest
Table of contents

1. Defusing the Ticking Social Bomb Argument: The Right to
Self-Defensive Torture.................................... 1
05 February 2014 ii ProQuest
Document 1 of 1
Defusing the Ticking Social Bomb Argument: The Right to
Self-Defensive Torture
Author: Steinhoff, Uwe
ProQuest document link
Abstract: Human beings have a right to self-defensive torture
against culpable aggressors. That is hardly
surprising. Since people have a right even to kill a culpable
aggressor if, in the circumstances, this is a
proportionate and necessary means of self-defence against an
imminent threat, and since most forms of torture
are not as bad as killing, then people must also have a right to
torture a culpable aggressor if this, too, in the
circumstances, is a proportionate and necessary means of self-
defence against an imminent threat. However,
people sometimes feel justified in violating the rights of a
person because the stakes are so very high. Genuine
cases of self-defensive torture are extremely rare, much rarer
than cases of self-defensive killing. In fact, nearly
all cases of torture are unjustified, as are the overwhelming
majority of cases of killing.
Links: Base URL to Journal Linker:
Full text: Human beings have a right to self-defensive torture
against culpable aggressors. That is hardly
surprising. Since people have a right even to kill a culpable
aggressor if, in the circumstances, this is a
proportionate and necessary means of self-defence against an
imminent threat, and since most forms of torture

are not as bad as killing, then people must also have a right to
torture a culpable aggressor if this, too, in the
circumstances, is a proportionate and necessary means of self-
defence against an imminent threat.
However, we sometimes feel justified in violating the rights of a
person because the stakes are so very high. If
we could save humanity only by killing one innocent person,
thus violating his rights, we might well feel justified
in doing so. In the same vein, the proponents of what I call the
ticking social bomb argument hold that in certain
circumstances it is justifiable to violate people's right to self-
defence (which also includes the defence of others)
against a culpable aggressor by shielding this aggressor from
torture (thus aiding and abetting him in his
aggression), even if in the circumstances torture would have
been a proportionate and necessary means of self-
defence against the imminent threat posed by the aggressor.
They say that this severe rights-violation is
justifiable if such an act of self-defensive torture would have
terrible social consequences. And they claim that
acts of torture always have such consequences: any act of
torture, according to them, leads to the
institutionalisation of torture, to a pandemic of torture, to a
social explosion of torture, as it were.
This is the ticking social bomb argument. I will argue here that
it is sheer fantasy and that we should not cede
our right to self-defensive torture to unrealistic consequentialist
concoctions.
MANY READERS, especially those familiar with the
philosophical debate about torture, might rub their eyes in
disbelief after these introductory paragraphs. After all, the
structure and the style of this argument are quite
familiar-however, the conclusion is different from what one
might be accustomed to.
What happened? Well, I have mimicked-indeed mocked-the way
quite a few absolutist opponents of torture deal

with the so-called ticking-bomb argument (not to be confused
with what I call the ticking social bomb argument):
they like to pose as the defenders of human rights or of
deontological constraints against evil or as deluded
consequentialists who are intent on undermining those absolute
rights and constraints by appealing to allegedly
utterly unrealistic scenarios. Yet, unfortunately for these
absolutist torture opponents, it is rather easy to turn the
tables on them, along the lines of the introductory paragraphs.
This is precisely what I will do here.
Is Torture Absolutely Impermissible?
Let me first note that practically all recent publications directed
against the ticking-bomb argument do not
provide any plausible deontological argument for the claim that
there is an absolute right (as least as far as the
real world is concerned) not to be tortured. Such a plausible
argument cannot be provided by simply
05 February 2014 Page 1 of 9 ProQuest
http://search.proquest.com/docview/866741341?accountid=8289
http://yw6vq3kb9d.search.serialssolutions.com?genre=article&s
id=ProQ:&atitle=Defusing%20the%20Ticking%20Social%20Bo
mb%20Argument:%20The%20Right%20to%20Self-
Defensive%20Torture&title=Global%20Dialogue%20(Online)&i
ssn=&date=2010-01-
01&volume=12&issue=1&spage=1&author=Steinhoff,%20Uwe
brandishing the concepts of "human dignity" or of "ends in
themselves" or "human rights", etc.; rather, a
plausible argument would have to show why torture in self-
defence should be absolutely prohibited or would
violate human rights or human dignity even while killing in
self-defence is not thus prohibited or does not violate
human rights or dignity. This is obviously a very difficult

prerequisite, and in their desperation some absolutist
opponents have resorted to dogmatically insisting that all forms
of torture are worse than death.1 Well, they are
not, as a moment's reflection can easily show. Would you prefer
death to thirty minutes of "waterboarding"? Or
even to a whole day of waterboarding?
Of course, more could be said on the failure of several
deontological arguments, or better, pseudo-arguments-
"pseudo" because they all beg the question or make
preposterous empirical assumptions-but it has been said in
other places already.2 However, let me nonetheless provide one
example for my claim that recent critics of the
ticking-bomb argument fail to provide arguments for their
deontological claims.
My example is a very prominent one, namely that of Henry
Shue. Shue has written an article on torture that is
frequently referred to in the literature as "seminal" or "classic",
and with good reason.3 In that article he claimed
that single acts of torture can be morally justified in extreme
conditions. He has since rescinded this position
and become an absolutist opponent of torture.
However, in that older article Shue had at least developed an
argument for why torture might always be
impermissible even if killing is sometimes justified. I have
criticised this argument elsewhere4-it is clearly wrong,
and Shue no longer adheres to it. But instead of providing a new
argument, he now just makes irrelevant
references or blatantly wrong statements. As regards the former,
he begins his article "Torture in Dreamland"-a
favourite among absolutist opponents of torture-with the
apodictic statement: "Torture is wrong."5 This short
statement comes with a footnote that bears the whole
argumentative burden: "David Sussman provides a
powerful explanation of why torture is wrong in his article in
this volume."6 Yet Sussman not only provides no
powerful explanation of why torture is wrong, he provides no

explanation at all, nor does he claim to do so.
Instead, he offers as conclusion merely the following: "If life
calls for a special kind of respect or concern from
us, then torture, insofar as it aims to transform life into a kind
of anti-life, must be morally offensive in a way that
is different from and perhaps greater than even killing."7
Well, perhaps not.8 But however that may be, even if torture
were morally more offensive than killing-by which
Sussman means only, as is clear from an important earlier
article of his, that torture "bears an especially high
burden of justification, greater in degree and different in kind
from even that of killing"9-this would not show that
it is always wrong (and Sussman explicitly says that he does
"not here contend that torture is categorically
wrong").10 After all, killing someone is morally more offensive
than breaking someone's finger, but that
obviously does not show that it is always wrong to kill
someone. It would at best suggest this if breaking
someone's finger were always morally wrong-but it isn't. Killing
someone is not always morally wrong, either.
Therefore the fact, if it were a fact, that torture is always
morally more offensive than killing could not show, or
even so much as suggest, that torture is always morally wrong.
As regards making blatantly wrong statements, Shue claims in
his most recent article on torture (and other
issues), again apodictically: "Clearly torture is morally wrong-
no one seriously suggests otherwise."11 Either
Shue is using the term "morally wrong" in an entirely
idiosyncratic fashion, or else he lacks an overview of the
current debate-strangely enough for someone who vigorously
takes part in it. Authors like, for example
(completely aside from those who have not published in
English), Winfried Brugger, Stephen Kershnar, Fritz
Allhof, Seumas Miller, Francesco Belvisi, Mirko Bargaric, Julie
Clarke, Jeff McMahan and myself, definitely do
seriously suggest otherwise.

Thus, apart from dogmatic statements and imagined consensus,
Shue has nothing to offer on the deontological
front against self-defensive torture. I think that this is quite
revealing.
Straw Man 'Idealisations'
Let us now turn to Shue's criticism of the ticking-bomb
argument. "There is a standard philosopher's example
which someone always invokes: suppose a fanatic, perfectly
willing to die rather than collaborate in the
thwarting of his own scheme, has set a hidden nuclear device to
explode in the heart of Paris. There is no time
to evacuate the innocent people or even the movable art
treasures-the only hope of preventing tragedy is to
torture the perpetrator, find the device, and deactivate it." While
Shue had once seen "no way to deny the
permissibility of torture in a case just like this",12 he has
increasingly stressed the unlikelihood of this situation
over the years, coming to the conclusion "that one should
absolutely never torture".13 The "idealisations" Shue
detects in this ticking-bomb case include the idea that the
person to be tortured "is somehow known with
certainty actually to be the person who planted the ticking
bomb" and that the torture victim "quickly divulges the
crucial information before the bomb has had time to
explode".14
But whose idealisations are these? Shue claims that "someone"
always invokes this tickingbomb scenario, but
note that in his description of the scenario those idealisations
are missing. And in fact Shue never ever provides
a reference revealing the identity of this mysterious someone
engaging in the unrealistic idealisations that

bother Shue so much. So who is it?
The fact is that it is Shue himself. He conjures up a ticking-
bomb argument of his very own making in order then
conveniently to detect idealisations in it that he himself has
personally put there in the first place.15 If someone
is being unrealistic here, it is Shue himself.
No one who has ever used a ticking-bomb scenario to argue for
the permissibility of torture in the real world
(instead of only to test the strength or scope of our presumably
absolutist convictions) has ever used a scenario
that involved the two idealisations just mentioned. And no one
needs to, as we will see below.
The supposed "idealisation" Shue detests most, however, is that
of the rare, isolated case, which holds that
incidents of torture do not recur: "Once the original 'right man'
becomes too hysterical to provide coherent
information, the torturers do not simply move on to, as it were,
the second-best 'right man.' And the torturers do
not, operating on the principle that practice makes perfect,
circulate from, say, Guantanamo to Bagram to Abu
Ghraib to Romania to Poland."16 Shue, in contrast, proclaims
that the ticking-bomb hypotheticals
are not simply imaginary but unrealistic, like an imaginary
alcoholic who drinks two beers only a night. There are
former alcoholics, who do not drink at all, and active
alcoholics. To think that there may be rare alcoholics who
drink moderately is to fail to understand alcoholism. Similarly,
history does not present us with a government
that used torture selectively and judiciously.17
The alcoholism analogy is the epitome of the social ticking-
bomb argument: if an alcoholic has one drink, he will
have many. Similarly, if just one act of torture is allowed to
happen, many will follow-torture will "metastasize
throughout the body politic".18 A single act of torture suffices
to ignite the fuse that will lead to the social
explosion of torture.

Of course, it is Shue who fails to understand alcoholism-as
much as he fails to understand torture. He does not
have a shred of evidence for his claims. While officially he
stresses how important it is that "one immerses
oneself in the empirical details",19 it seems that he does not
actually really check the empirical facts. True, in
cheesy Hollywood soap operas and drinking melodramas an
alcoholic cannot have two beers only a night. In
reality, however, he can20-a fact Shue could have easily
discovered had he checked reality instead of taking
urban legend at face value. Thus, one has to turn Shue's
example upside-down: claiming that there cannot be
rare, isolated cases of torture is like claiming that an alcoholic
cannot have two beers only a night. It confuses
fact and fiction. It is torture-opposition in dreamland.
The True Dreamers
Shue seems to have a second argument, though, which he offers
under the heading of "abstraction" instead of
"idealisation". Unfortunately, it is difficult to decipher what
exactly the argument is supposed to be; Shue
certainly is not particularly clear about it. Anyway, let us have
a look at the decisive passages:
it is simply dreamy to think that all of a sudden we are simply
going to stumble upon someone who happens to
have the skills to make a man who planted a ticking bomb
reverse the direction of his life and assist us in
defusing his bomb. But this is very bad news for my attempt in
1978 ... to allow the exceptional case. Our ...
problem is abstraction: we have abstracted from the social
basis-the institutional context-necessary for the
practice of torture. For torture is a practice. Practitioners who

do not practice will not be very good at what they
do ...
Either "torturers" are just thugs who have no clue what they are
doing, in which case we need not allow for
exceptional cases in which they rapidly and effectively extract
invaluable catastrophepreventing information, or
some can have genuine expertise ... If we want it ready, we need
to maintain, even nourish, the organizations
and networks in which the expertise resides.21
This is an argument against torture based not on the bad
consequences of acts of torture, but the preconditions
of successful acts of interrogational torture and the
consequences of the institutionalisation of torture. The
argument seems to go like this:22
1. In order to torture someone in a way that will actually
retrieve the vital information, the torturer has to be
skilled and experienced.
2. Skilled and experienced torturers are available only if torture
is institutionalised.
3. Torture by unskilled and inexperienced torturers is always
unjustified.
4. However, institutionalising torture has very bad
consequences; it will mean that torture will metastasise
instead of being limited to one-off cases.
5. Conclusion: Torture is never justified (one should never
torture).
If this is not Shue's argument, I do not quite know, I admit,
what it is (and, again, the onus is on him to make his
argument clear, not on others). Anyway, what should we make
of this argument as stated here?
First of all, let me make clear that I whole-heartedly agree with
premiss 4. Institutionalising torture (which is
different from its mere legalisation),23 for example through
"torture warrants", the training of torturers, the
maintenance of torture camps, the production of torture
instruments, etc., is a very bad idea indeed. I absolutely

reject the institutionalisation of torture.
However, while I accept premiss 4, I reject the first three
premisses. They are all wrong.
As regards premiss 1, it is simply not true that in order to
torture someone in a way that will actually retrieve the
vital information, the torturer has to be skilled and experienced.
In a famous case in Germany in 2002, the mere
threat of torture (and some think that threatening torture is
torture) sufficed to make the child-kidnapper Magnus
Gäfgen disclose the location of the child (who, however, had
already been murdered by Gäfgen-but that does
not speak against the effectiveness of torture to retrieve the
truth in some cases).
Gäfgen wanted to avoid pain. Pain is a very strong motivator.
Even if Gäfgen had withstood the threat of pain,
the actual infliction of pain might very well have changed his
mind. And it is simply not that difficult to inflict pain.
It does not require long training and experience. To be sure, a
skilled and experienced torturer will be more
efficient in some cases, but in other cases he might not retrieve
the information any quicker than an untrained
torturer; and even if he did, the untrained torturer might still be
effective enough to avert the danger in time.
But we do not have to speculate: eight-year-old Denis Mook
was kidnapped in Bremen, Germany, in 1988. After
the ransom payment the kidnapper was arrested. He refused to
reveal the location of the child. The police then
beat the kidnapper until, finally, he did reveal the child's
location. The police retrieved the child alive from a
wooden box (90 x 50 x 40 centimetres) in which he had been
caged for thirteen days and thirteen nights (a
treatment that certainly amounts to torture, in this case of an
innocent child, and not of a culpable kidnapper).
The child was alive and in relatively good health. Thus, if we
follow Shue's advice and immerse ourselves in the
empirical details, we discover what he fails to see: for self-

defensive torture to be effective, you do not need
torture experts. (Besides, more than twenty years after this act
of torture, Germany has still not adopted the
widespread use of torture-as Amnesty International will
confirm. This is further proof that Shue's claim that there
cannot be isolated cases of torture is "dreamy", to use his word
of choice.)
Premiss 2 is also wrong. Even if it were correct that only a
torture bureaucracy could produce torture experts
(actually, it is not true, but I will not argue this point here), this
still would not mean that you have to
institutionalise torture, that is, create or maintain a torture
bureaucracy, in order to have access to torture
experts. It is enough that there once was a torture bureaucracy
somewhere in the not too distant past. This is,
for example, the case in Argentina or Chile. Thus, if they faced
a Gäfgen or Mook case (or a ticking-bomb
case), they would have access to trained torturers without
having to rely on the existence (now) of a torture
bureaucracy. Thus, there would be no metastatic effects
involved.
That premiss 3 is wrong already follows from the falsity of
premiss 1. However, it is worthwhile noting just how
wrong premiss 3 is. The idea behind the premiss is of course
that interrogational torture has to be likely to
succeed in order to be justifiable. Sometimes Shue even sounds
as though he thinks that torture actually has to
succeed. That it does succeed is one of the "idealisations" Shue
deplores.24 However, interrogational torture
indeed sometimes does succeed, as we just saw. Pointing out
this fact is not idealistic, but realistic, while

denying it is unrealistic.
Moreover, it is not true that self-defence (self-defensive torture
is no exception) has to be successful in order to
be justified. If somebody tries to fend off a rapist with mace
spray and fails, the use of the mace against the
rapist was still justified. Might does not make right, and
helplessness does not make wrong.
Still further, there does not even have to be a likelihood of
success in all cases. Indeed, success may be highly
unlikely. To recycle an example of mine: "Even if it were an
empirically well-proven and commonly well-known
fact that stopping a serial murderer and rapist by ramming a
sharp pencil deep into his ear only works one out of
10,000 times, a victim of a rapist would still be well within her
rights to ram a sharp pencil deep into the rapist's
ear if that is the only option remaining that at least could have
success."25 There is simply no reason why the
victim of an aggressor, or people who come to help the victim,
should forgo their last hope only in order to make
sure that the aggressor is not inconvenienced by defensive
measures that in all likelihood will not stop him
anyway. They are allowed to try to stop him with improbable
means if they run out of probable ones.
'Hard Cases Make Bad Law'
Thus, the attempt by Shue (and others) to justify violations of
our right to self-defensive torture with
consequentialist arguments fails. Of course, Shue (and others)
do not want to couch what they are doing in
terms of a programme for the consequentialist justification of
rights violations. They want to pass that buck to
the ticking-bomb theorist (or, in my case, the Dirty Harry
theorist: while I think the ticking-bomb scenario is
realistic, I do not believe that it ever really has been real).
However, that does not work.
Consider the fact that already in his original article on torture-
where he still conceded the moral permissibility of

torture in certain circumstances-Shue vehemently opposed the
legalisation of torture. "Hard cases make bad
law" was his slogan, and still is.26 However, Shue overlooks
that this slogan cuts both ways.27 As Volker Erb
has rightly argued, someone who shields an aggressor from
necessary and proportionate defensive measures
by or on behalf of the victim (for example, by making such
measures punishable or by physically obstructing
them) actually aids and abets the aggressor and violates the
rights and the human dignity of the victim.28 But
this is precisely what Shue thinks should happen: the police and
the law should prevent a would-be torturer from
defensively torturing Mook's kidnapper, for example, thereby
providing important support for the latter's
aggressive torture of the child. Thus, as far as these cases are
concerned, Shue suddenly does want to make
exceptions to the general rules that prohibit aiding and abetting
child-kidnappers, and, more generally, that
allow just self-defence and prohibit hindering it. He demands
that the victims' and their helpers' right to self-
defence (and freedom and life) be violated and that the police
and the law become the accomplices of the
kidnapper. Whatever happened to "hard cases make bad law"?
The only justification Shue has for demanding that the child-
kidnapper and child-torturer be aided and abetted
by legally shielding him or her from defensive torture, however,
is his consequentialist ticking social bomb
argument. Since that argument, as we saw, is spurious and a
pure fantasy, we must reject it and uphold the
right to self-defence, including the right to self-defensive
torture.

But Is It Self-Defence? Yes, It Is
But is torturing the terrorist in the ticking-bomb case really a
case of self-defence? Well, I will not argue here
that it is (although I do think it is and that even if it weren't,
there would be a non-consequentialist justification-
based on rights and on justice in the distribution of unavoidable
harm-for torturing the ticking-bomb terrorist).
Instead, I will focus on the childkidnapping case. I can do this
because Shue-and others-use the ticking social
bomb argument to deny, as we saw, the permissibility of any act
of torture, and not only the permissibility of
torture in the ticking-bomb case. Thus, they are committed to
the view that in the child-kidnapping case torture
is impermissible, too.
Anglo-Saxon philosophers and lawyers arguing for an absolute
prohibition of torture hardly ever consider the
child-kidnapping case. This is somewhat ironic. It is ironic
because they like to claim, as Shue does, that the
"advocates of torture love a ticking bomb".29 Actually,
however, it is the absolute prohibitionists who love it, or,
more precisely, who are obsessed with it-so much so that they
can hardly see beyond it. For the most part, they
labour under the delusion that by "defusing" the ticking-bomb
argument one defuses "the" argument for
torture.30
Therefore, it is hardly surprising that two recent critics of the
idea that torture can in some cases be justified by
an appeal to the right to self-defence focus exclusively on the
tickingbomb case.
Whitley Kaufman's criticism relies on the distinction between
what he (basically following Jeff McMahan) calls
the "Aggressor" and what he calls the "Culpable Bystander".
The latter is "a person who has committed a
wrongful act, but is not now committing a wrong".31 The
former is now committing a wrong, or is posing an
imminent threat. Kaufman thinks that the captured ticking-bomb

terrorist is only a Culpable Bystander and that
violence to avert pending unjust harm may be directed only
against Aggressors. I think that Kaufman is wrong
on both counts, but will not argue this here. Instead, I simply
want to point out that Kaufman's criticism is
completely inapplicable to the kidnapping case since, as he
himself admits, a "kidnapper ... is an aggressor
simply by virtue of his holding you hostage".32 Thus, Mook's
kidnapper, by holding the child hostage in a
wooden box, thereby depriving him of his freedom and torturing
him, is an aggressor, whether in custody or not.
He is, after all, torturing the child right now while he is in
custody. (This is also how German law, British law, and
US law see it.)33 Thus, torturing the kidnapper to save the child
would be a case of self-defensive torture even
on Kaufman's own assumptions.
Daniel Hill assumes (without argument) that if you cause a
person to perform a very specific action, then the
action by which you cause this is not self-defensive. Self-
defensive actions, according to him, are only those
that prevent a person from doing something. I see absolutely no
reason why one should accept this assumption.
It is certainly not part of the meaning of self-defence.
More important, however, is that Hill further thinks that there is
a big moral difference between preventing
someone from doing something and making him do something
specific. He tries to illustrate this difference with
several examples, which, for reasons of space, I cannot go into
here. Suffice it to say that I do not share his
intuitions at all.
Yet, the decisive point comes when he tries to identify "the
basis of this moral difference between preventing
someone from performing an action that will cause a tragedy
and causing someone to cause a tragedy not to
occur".34 It lies, he says, in the difference between negative
duties (not to do something) and positive duties (to

do something). He elaborates:
It seems permissible, then, in some circumstances to inflict pain
to force people to comply with their negative
duties, but it does not seem permissible to inflict pain in order
to force people to comply with their positive
duties, even extremely important positive duties, such as the
duty to avert an atrocity that the people in question
have set in motion.35
The problem is that Hill has a remarkably simplistic-indeed
mistaken-view of negative duties. To be sure, one
can discharge negative duties by doing nothing whatsoever ever,
but once one starts to do something one
might be able to discharge one's negative duties only by doing
something. As Richard Louis Trammel notes:
Drivers must correct the movement of their cars, and waiters
and waitresses must hold on to hot dishes passing
over their customers. Thus the requirement of the commands not
to kill or injure is not that the agent refrain
from initiating any causal processes tending toward death or
injury, but rather that the agent not initiate any
such causal processes without continuing to intervene to
counteract the tendencies he has previously
initiated.36
Thus, for the ticking-bomb terrorist and the child-kidnapper, the
positive action of revealing the location of the
bomb or of the child, respectively, is an obvious way to
discharge their negative duty not to kill or torture
innocent people unjustifiably. If they do not discharge this duty
voluntarily, they can be forced to discharge it in
self-defence-by self-defensive torture, if need be.
However, genuine cases of self-defensive torture are extremely

rare, much rarer than cases of self-defensive
killing. In fact, nearly all-but not absolutely all-cases of torture
are unjustified, as are the overwhelming majority
of cases of killing. Torturing so-called terrorists to find out
more about their networks is not a case of self-
defensive torture (and, as an aside, the necessity defence does
not apply either). Finally, let me again
emphasise that I am adamantly and categorically against the
institutionalisation of torture, and thus against
training torturers, torture warrants, torture camps and
"rendition".
Footnote
ENDNOTES
1. See, for example, J. Jeremy Wisnewski and R. D. Emerick,
The Ethics of Torture (London and New York:
Continuum, 2009), pp. 61-3, or Bob Brecher, Torture and the
Ticking Bomb (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008), pp. 75-
85. These authors claim of course that the psychological and
medical literature on torture supports their verdict,
but it quite simply does not.
2. See in particular Stephen Kershnar, Desert, Retribution, and
Torture (Lanham, Md.: University Press of
America, 2001), pp. 186-90; Rainer Trapp, Folter oder
selbstverschuldete Rettungsbefragung? [Torture, or life-
saving interrogation brought upon oneself?] (Paderborn: Mentis,
2006), pp. 103-85, 220-4; and Uwe Steinhoff,
"Justifying Defensive Torture", in Torture: Moral Absolutes and
Ambiguities, ed. Bev Clucas, Gerry Johnstone,
and Tony Ward (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2009), pp. 47, 51-6.
3. Henry Shue, "Torture", Philosophy and Public Affairs 7, no.
2 (winter 1978). Henceforth, I will refer to the
version reprinted in Torture: A Collection, ed. Sanford
Levinson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
4. Uwe Steinhoff, "Torture: The Case for Dirty Harry and
against Alan Dershowitz", Journal of Applied
Philosophy 23, no. 3 (August 2006), pp. 337-8. Reprinted in

War, Torture and Terrorism: Ethics and War in the
21st Century, ed. David Rodin (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007).
5. Henry Shue, "Torture in Dreamland: Disposing of the Ticking
Bomb", Case Western Reserve Journal of
International Law 37, nos. 2 and 3 (2006), p. 231.
6. Ibid., n. 2.
7. David Sussman, "Defining Torture", Case Western Reserve
Journal of International Law 37, nos. 2 and 3
(2006), p. 230.
8. For a criticism of Sussman's views see my "Case for Dirty
Harry", pp. 338-40.
9. David Sussman, "What's Wrong with Torture?", Philosophy
and Public Affairs 33, no. 1 (January 2005), p. 4.
10. Ibid.
11. Henry Shue, "Making Exceptions", Journal of Applied
Philosophy 26, no. 3 (August 2009), p. 310.
12. Shue, "Torture", p. 57 (Shue's italics).
13. Shue, "Making Exceptions", p. 308.
14. Shue, "Torture in Dreamland", p. 233.
15. This is also the way David Luban proceeds. See his
"Unthinking the Ticking Bomb", Georgetown Law
Faculty Working Papers, Paper 68, July 2008, pp. 7-8
[http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/fwps_papers/68],
and his "Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb", Virginia
Law Review 91, no. 6 (October 2005), pp. 1440-5.
17. Ibid., p. 234 (see also p. 238). Shue adds in a footnote: "If
anyone knows a case, I would appreciate an e-
mail giving its name." May I add here that I would appreciate an
e-mail from Shue giving me the name of a
ticking-bomb theorist making the certainty assumption?

18. Ibid., p. 235.
19. Shue, "Making Exceptions", p. 310.
20. See "Can an Alcoholic Have an Occasional Drink?", BBC
News Magazine, 10 November 2008
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7719522.stm],
and David J. Hanson, "Alcoholics Can Recover
from Alcoholism and Drink in Moderation"
[http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/controversies/1109212610.
html].
22. Jessica Wolfendale's argument in "Training Torturers: A
Critique of the 'Ticking Bomb' Argument", Social
Theory and Practice 32, no. 2 (April 2006), seems to have a
similar structure.
23. In my view, many absolutist opponents of torture, in
particular those obsessed with the ticking-bomb
argument, overlook this distinction between legalisation and
institutionalisation. Some even overlook the
distinction between legalisation and moral justification.
25. Steinhoff, "Justifying Defensive Torture", p. 44. For another
example to the same effect, see my "Case for
Dirty Harry", pp. 342-3.
26. Shue, "Torture", p. 57; "Torture in Dreamland", p. 233.
27. This also true for the treatment of exceptions from moral
rules. Not allowing exceptions from the moral
prohibition of torture but allowing them from the moral right to
self-defence is simply arbitrary.
28. Volker Erb, "Folterverbot und Notwehrrecht" (The
prohibition of torture and the law of self-defence), in Ist
Folter erlaubt? Juristische und philosophische Aspekte (Is
torture allowed? Legal and philosophical aspects),
ed. Wolfgang Lenzen (Paderborn: Mentis, 2006), pp. 30-2.
30. I think this is true of Henry Shue, Jessica Wolfendale, J.

Jeremy Wisnewski, R. D. Emerick, Yuval Ginbar
and David Luban, to name a few. Only on the last three pages of
his book on the ticking bomb (see note 1
above) does Bob Brecher finally mention the childkidnapping
case-and says that nothing can be done for the
child. Denis Mook is lucky that the police in Bremen did not
share this view.
31. Whitley Kaufman, "Torture and the 'Distributive Justice'
Theory of Self-Defense: An Assessment", Ethics
and International Affairs 22, no. 1 (spring 2008), p. 98
(Kaufman's italics).
32. Ibid., p. 115, n. 71.
33. Steinhoff, "Justifying Defensive Torture", pp. 43-5.
34. Daniel Hill, "Ticking Bombs, Torture, and the Analogy with
Self-Defense", American Philosophical Quarterly
44, no. 4 (October 2007), p. 400.
35. Ibid., p. 401.
36. Richard Louis Trammell, "A Criterion for Determining
Negativity and Positivity", Tulane Studies in
Philosophy 33 (1985), pp. 76-7.
COPYRIGHT ©2010 by
Uwe Steinhoff
AuthorAffiliation
Uwe Steinhoff is assistant professor in the Department of
Politics and Public Administration at the University of
Hong Kong, and senior research associate in the Oxford
Leverhulme Programme on the Changing Character of
War. His book On the Ethics of War and Terrorism was
published by Oxford University Press in 2007.
Subject: Self defense; Torture; Terrorism; Violence;

Location: United States--US
Classification: 1210: Politics & political behavior; 9190:
United States
Publication title: Global Dialogue (Online)
Volume: 12
Issue: 1
Pages: 1-12
Number of pages: 12
Publication year: 2010
Publication date: Winter 2010
Year: 2010
Publisher: Centre for World Dialogue
Place of publication: Nicosia
Country of publication: Cyprus
Publication subject: Political Science--International Relations
Source type: Scholarly Journals
Language of publication: English
Document type: Feature
Document feature: References
ProQuest document ID: 866741341
Document URL:
Copyright: Copyright Centre for World Dialogue Winter 2010
Last updated: 2011-05-16
Database: ProQuest Research Library,ABI/INFORM Global
_____________________________________________________
__________
Contact ProQuest
- Terms
and Conditions
http://www.proquest.com/go/contactsupport

http://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditionsDefusing
the Ticking Social Bomb Argument: The Right to Self-
Defensive Torture
Week 4 Forum: Issues Facing America Essay Discussion ( 0
messages - 0 unread )
·
·
·
Week 4 Forum: Issues Facing America Essay DiscussionView
Full Description Hide Full Description
Choose one of the essays from the section “Issues Facing the
America” listed in the “Supplemental Readings” section of the
course lessons. Then, explain to the class where you believe the
following terms are found in the essay if applicable: claim,
support, warrant, backing, rebuttal, and qualifier. Give citations
to back up your points, and create a final works cited citation
for this essay.
In your responses, comment on your classmate’s analysis of the
his/her chosen essay. If you disagree with the analysis, explain
why. You may also use this reply to comment on whether the
organization, as explained by your classmate, creates a strong
argument.
After reading the essay “Defusing the Ticking Social Bomb
Argument: The Right to Self-Defensive Torture.”, I have found
the areas that the following terms have been used in
demonstrating a particular point of view. To begin with, claim
has been used several times by the authors such as Shue who
argues in the second paragraph that they claim that acts of
torture usually have social consequences. Additionally, the term
claim has been used on several occasions such as paragraphs 6,
7, 8, 9, 11, 14 where the author supports his arguments bases on
Henry Shue’s arguments in his several articles on torture.

Support has also been used in the part titled, “Hard Cases Make
Bad Laws” in the second paragraph. In this instance, the author
uses the term support in defending arguments by Shue and what
Shue thinks should happen. Shue argues that it is essential to
defend and abet kidnappers since they also have some rights.
The term warrant has been used in the final paragraph that
begins with the word “However.” In this instance, the author
seeks to explain why self-defensive cases are extremely rarer
than cases of self-defensive killing (Shue, 2006). He therefore
emphasizes that he is against the institution of torture
wholesomely and thus, against torture warrants too.
Backing, which is another meaning for supporting has been used
in various contexts too. It has been employed below at the
endnotes where the author states that some of the claims support
certain verdicts. The term rebuttal also means to deny, it has
been used at the section titled “But Is It Self-Defence? Yes, It
Is” where the author indicates that Shue and other writers
utilize the tickling social bomb argument to deny the
permissibility of any act of torture (Sussman, 2006). Finally,
the term qualifier has been used when the author challenges
Daniel Hill’s assumptions regarding the moral difference of
burring someone from doing something particular.
References
Shue, H. (2006). “Torture in Dreamland: Disposing of the
Ticking Bomb,” Case Western Reserve. Journal of International
Law 37, nos. 2 and 3 p. 231.
Sussman, D. (2006). “Defining Torture,” Case Western Reserve.
Journal of International Law 37, nos. 2 and 3, p. 23.
Henry Shue, "Making Exceptions", Journal of Applied
Philosophy 26, no. 3 (August 2009), p. 310.

Running Head THE TOULMIN ESSAY .docx

Running Head THE TOULMIN ESSAY .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Running Head THE TOULMIN ESSAY .docx

Similar to Running Head THE TOULMIN ESSAY .docx (12)

More from joellemurphey

More from joellemurphey (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Running Head THE TOULMIN ESSAY .docx