Sunday, January 17, 2010
remix
The infamously complex inner workings of government are constantly subject to many questions regarding the oppression of its citizens. The social foundation from which these questions arise is one which attempts at a marriage between social efficiency and welfare of its citizenry. Almost immediately it becomes obvious that some measures must be taken to prevent people from acting in a way which would disrupt or prevent a society from achieving a state of harmony. The most common of these preventative measures is incarceration or other means of punishment as a response to one's refusal to adhere to certain laws or doctrines which are most often established to promote and preserve the desired state of social harmony. At what point does the roundabout protection of a citizen's welfare develop into an unnecessary hindrance of the citizen's freedom?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
what is your topic? gay marriage? I would clarify up front what your topic is and then solidify your argument from there. Also, be careful of moral ambiguity... Jamie and Elise typically veto the idea of having a question as your thesis statement because it tends to lead to an argument that isn't very concrete.
ReplyDelete-Sarah NC
It is unclear what roundabout protection means and what are the specific questions of oppression?
ReplyDeleteI don’t think your thesis is supposed to be a question, but apart from that, it might be important to address the reasons why citizens rebel against society or the government.
ReplyDeleteI don't see an argument in the thesis statement. What do you mean about "round about protection".
ReplyDelete-I'm wondering how is it oppression if laws are laid out informing the population about what is legal and what the laws are looking down upon?
-There are two counter arguments that could be posed:
1) If the laws are laid down the individual makes the choice whether or not to break the laws and they know that breaking certain laws will lead to them ending up in jail.
2) One could argue that the government has the responsibility to remove people from a society that make it more dangerous for its citizens.
-Define what you mean by "unnecessary hindrance of the citizens freedom"
-Where does the responsibility lie, with the government or with the people, to act morally so there is no need for government regulation.
This overall is a interesting topic of discussion. I'm still unclear on where this essay would lead to.
Whose harmony are we talking about here? Hypothetically, if the majority is happy and harmonious then the society is harmonious, though this raises ethical problems of its own. Is efficiency or ethics more important?
ReplyDeleteThe dual nature of society is a very interesting point to raise, as is the precarious balance between oppression and necessary force.
I'm unsure about yr use of the word harmony. Are we talking John and Paul, or something different? That's just one of those hard words where more context is needed.
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of disruption of harmony are you talking about? Its a little unclear what exactly the topic is.
ReplyDeleteyou talk about social efficiency and social harmony as what can't be disrupted. Are those different?
What exactly do you mean by "roundabout protection"? It's not very apparent what your topic is. Also, what is your definition of "harmony" in the context of your argument?
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly is your topic? I also think you're going to need to define a lot of the phrases you use, such as "roundabout protection" and what sort of "harmony" you are referring to.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea you are presenting, that while a society is trying to promote protection, and other services to its citizens, it ends up preventing the citizens from reaching what truly matters (freedom). All in all, I like what you are getting at, but I'm just not sure what your topic is. Did you think we were supposed to post our final paper's first paragraphs?
ReplyDeleteI am unclear what you are discussing, is it governmental responsibility, freedom of citizenry, or progression. Also there is no thesis statement.
ReplyDeleteI, too, am unclear on what your thesis is. Also, some of the phrasings you use such as "social efficiency" and society "acheiving a state of harmony" were vague. Is there a way to say your ideas that is more preciese?
ReplyDelete