Lagley v.s. Levin

David Lagley and Mike Levin use similar types of arguments to support their causes. Although Skateboarding (David Lagley) and Torture (Mike Levin) are two very different subjects, they both had similar explanations in theory.
In “A Plea for Fair Treatment of Skateboarders, David Lagley says, “But in general skateboarders help the environment more than they hurt it.” He also says, “In the bigger picture, infrequent repair of curbs and benches is cheaper then attempts to heal the ozone. In “A Case for Torture”, Mike Levin says that overall, it would be better to kill the terrorist than the innocent people. Their claims both ask you to look at “the big picture” or the “overall outcome.” In their argument, they minimize the small damage, and only think about the positive ending. They demean the damage that happens in the process of their actions, and amplify the optimistic side of the outcome. They’re correct in that the overall outcome is desirable, but the means and damage that come along with the desired outcome, isn’t appealing. Lagley says that although skateboarding at public places hurts the concrete, mildly damages property, and can be disruptive, the environmental advantage clearly outweigh the property damage. Levin says that the benefit of saving innocent lives outweigh the much less beneficial killing of the terrorist.
Both authors are guilty of this, but Levin is a little bit more sneaky and inconspicuous. He makes the demeaning less noticeable, and Lagley’s is more prominent.