In discussing the legitimacy of rhetoric, Aristotle proposed that three elements were to be found in most arguments: ethos, pathos, and logos, either of which or all of which could be used to construct legitimate arguments capable of persuading listeners to accept a particular point of view (Cockcroft and Cockcroft, 1992, p. 19-21). At issue herein is a rhetorical critique of two different articles, each on the subject of the legitimacy of torture as a means of obtaining information from an identified enemy that can be used at least in theory to achieve some positive outcome such as a reduction in the loss of life due to the acts of a terrorist or a terrorist organization. Mirko Bagaric (2005, p. 1) argues that "the belief that torture is always wrong is, however, misguided and symptomatic of the alarmist and reflexive responses typically emanating from social commentators." In contrast, Christopher Pearson (2005, p. 20) asserts that "the use of torture by the state is not legitimate, let alone morally imperative, because it is just too unreliable to be justified even on consequentialist grounds."
The first rhetorical test or proof to be applied to these arguments is that of ethos which Aristotle refers to as the character or virtue of the speaker and which in modern usage as described by Cockcroft and Cockcroft (1992, p. 19) refers to "the set of values held by an individual or a community, reflected in their language, social attitudes, and behavior." This definition as applied to the argument advanced by Bagaric (2005, p. 2) leads one to the realization that the author believes that "it is universally accepted that it is permissible to violate the right to life of the aggressor to save an innocent person." Bagaric (2005, p. 3) rejects the slippery slope arguments which says that if torture is allowed in a limited context it will become widespread, that it will further dehumanize society, and that there is no surety tha...