Without new ideas, any society will stagnate. New ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. Therefore, if a society is to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated." ARGUMENT
The above argument states that for a society to be dynamic, it has to come up with new ideas and these new ideas can come up only in a liberal society. The extent of freedom to individual in a society has long been a debated issue. But the argument as presented has certain questionable premises and assumptions which make the conclusion invalid.
The primary issue with the argument is that the basic premise of the argument is not proven. In fact many ideas had come up in earlier non-liberal societies where freedom of expression was not enjoyed by people. But still they have managed to introduce new ideas. For example, the Indian society did not permit freedom of expression before independence but still many philosophers had preached their radical ideas during that period.
Also every society has its own cultural and social set of values. To preserve these values, the society permits only certain types of freedom to its people. This keeps the society dynamic and also preserves its social values.
While the argument does have certain issues, this is not to say that the argument is without base. The argument needs to consider that although culmination of new ideas are more conducive in a liberal society but it is not a pre-requisite. Also every society imposes certain limits on freedom of expression according to its inherent values.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and questionable assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. If the author truly hopes to change his reader's mind on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions and provide evidential support.
The above argument states that for a society to be dynamic, it has to come up with new ideas and these new ideas can come up only in a liberal society. The extent of freedom to individual in a society has long been a debated issue. But the argument as presented has certain questionable premises and assumptions which make the conclusion invalid.
The primary issue with the argument is that the basic premise of the argument is not proven. In fact many ideas had come up in earlier non-liberal societies where freedom of expression was not enjoyed by people. But still they have managed to introduce new ideas. For example, the Indian society did not permit freedom of expression before independence but still many philosophers had preached their radical ideas during that period.
Also every society has its own cultural and social set of values. To preserve these values, the society permits only certain types of freedom to its people. This keeps the society dynamic and also preserves its social values.
While the argument does have certain issues, this is not to say that the argument is without base. The argument needs to consider that although culmination of new ideas are more conducive in a liberal society but it is not a pre-requisite. Also every society imposes certain limits on freedom of expression according to its inherent values.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and questionable assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. If the author truly hopes to change his reader's mind on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions and provide evidential support.
