Login/Join

Treat Others as You Would Want to be Treated: The Golden Rule and Torture

Discussion
Oct 25, 2012

After carefully reading three documents, I have understood more about the subject of torture. I believe that torture is terrible. I believe that, exactly that same as my second article, you should treat others as you want to be treated--put yourself in their position; if you don’t want that to be done on you, then I don’t suggest you doing it. It is the Golden Rule! It is elementary morality!

My first document that I read, it talked about how torture can be good. The document had some very strong points--I just didn’t feel like they were strong enough to interfere with my morality. Some of the points in the document were: A police officer shoots a person to save 50 hostages is considered a Hero act. Doctors in the wars who amputate limbs without anesthesia on battlefield inflicted tremendous pain to the person who is being amputated. Why? In order to save the life of the soldier, lest he die of gangrene.
The document also said, “But if it is permissible to take Mohammed’s life to save lives, why is it impermissible to inflict pain to him to save lives?”. I believe that you shouldn’t be killing or torturing the person at all. I would just leave him to rot in a prison and maybe, just maybe, he will feel guilty and come clean.

My first document I read, was a for the use of torture. But, only for those with extraordinary circumstances--such as, the terrorist, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. They want him to talk, but he isn’t. So they want to force him to talk through the use of torture. Mainly, because they are saying he is holding information that might cause trouble to the U.S.

The second document I read was titled, “Torture is Morally Reprehensible”. I agreed with this document a lot. The first line of the document was, “Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself.” Right there, the Golden Rule! Republican John McCain, he himself was a victim of torture during the Vietnam War. Guess what? He is a leading proponent to ban the use of torture and also “cruel and inhumane treatment.” I believe that the reason he is pro for the banning of the use of torture, because he experienced it first hand; he knows what it is like to be tortured.
My second document didn’t have as many good points as my first article. But the second document relates to morality. It is not right. Understanding the use of torture is bad. The document really only had two good reasons: The Golden Rule--treat others as you want to be treated--and bring a first hand person into the argument, John McCain.

The third document that I read was titled, “Both Civilized and Less Civilized Torture Techniques”. The document has extremely strong points such as: Since torture is prohibited, and denied by states because it is wrong, then why is it common in today’s world. It also said something about it, people being tortured in second and third world countries. But none of them really accept the fact, so does that mean there is no torture in the world. No torturing regime defends or even acknowledges its own torture as the use of torture.

The document also came to the idea that the “people” are now willing to accept the use torturing. Also trusting the government with the power to decide who to torture. But, I believe the government might abuse that power. Then they will torture whom they want to torture. Torturing anyone that is even to suspected to terrorism. The Government will need to understand who is it that want to torture if they are granted that power by the people. They will have to choose people that they know are involved with terrorism.

All in all, I know believe in the use of torture. Just follow the golden rule and your elementary morals. Put yourself in their shoes and see if they you would want to be treated that way.

Comments

JackyHuynh, I have no

Submitted by JAfricano on Thu, 2012-10-25 06:06.

JackyHuynh, I have no particular stand on torture; however, I can see its pros and cons. Your same logic could be used as an argument *for* torture; i.e, if you wouldn't want important information regarding the safety of your country withheld from you, you wouldn't do the same. On the other hand, torture could lead to the anguish of a completely innocent person, and if done incorrectly, people would generally say what their torturer wants to hear in order to cease the pain.

Golden rule

Submitted by TristanW33 on Thu, 2012-10-25 11:05.

I agree that torture should not be practiced anymore. Although it can be justifiable and there are certainly people who deserve it. Torture is a barbaric practice that should've been left behind in the dark ages. There are also instances when the victims may be innocent! Imagine how awful it would be to suffer every day for a crime you didn't commit and for information you don't have. Anyone whos really undergone the mental and physical aspects of torture knows how scaring it is. I also agree that the government abuses this power, all prisoners should at least be held under trial with legitimate evidence to be tortured and jailed.

Jacky, I'm glad you added

Submitted by kaleybanyai on Thu, 2012-10-25 17:08.

Jacky, I'm glad you added both sides of the argument about torture because I think it is easy to be biased and only see the good or bad things depending on what you believe. However, I don't think that a lot of people want to accept the fact that the government was able to catch Osama Bin Laden was by information given up torture. Nobody wants to hurt anybody else for fun but don't you think that maybe if someone is killing thousands of their own people, it can be somewhat understandable. Terrorists literally want to destroy our country. If they were in our position, I'm sure they would worse things. It's really too bad our world has come to a point where things like this are even being debated but there really isn't a way around it. Thanks for your post.