-
elliebelly
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 12:16 am
"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."
Discuss how well-reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The argument is poorly reasoned since it assumes that new ideas are exclusively generated for the greater good of society, and therefore societal restrictions.
Firstly, history has proved that society's attempts to limit freedom of expression do not prevent people from thinking up new ideas. In fact, these restrictions often push people to be more creative in their approach to problems they face, as has been shown in the recent unrest in Iran. The government's control of traditional media has prompted people to devise innovative methods of using social media to express themselves and communicate with the outside world.
Secondly, the argument assumes that all new ideas are inherently 'good', and therefore any measures that restrict their expression will in turn prevent society from thriving. This is a utopian view of human nature fails to recognise the reality of a society where many ideas are formed based on assumptions and hearsay, rather than facts and knowledge. The public expression and propagation of ideas that are racist or slanderous is unlikely to cause society to thrive, which suggests that in certain situations there is a rightful place for limits on freedom of expression.
Finally, the argument imposes a highly western point of view on the rest of the world, through it's implication that a society that does not change will 'stagnate'. This is contrary to the views of many other cultures, such as Aboriginal Australians, where time is viewed to be cyclical rather than linear. While there is undoubtedly an important place for new ideas in such societies, maintaining certain traditions and ways of life is seen as an integral part of enabling their society to thrive.
In conclusion, the argument is poorly reasoned since it assumes that new ideas are exclusively generated for the greater good of society, and therefore societal restrictions.
This is the first time I've written one of these, so any and all feedback would be appreciated!!
Discuss how well-reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The argument is poorly reasoned since it assumes that new ideas are exclusively generated for the greater good of society, and therefore societal restrictions.
Firstly, history has proved that society's attempts to limit freedom of expression do not prevent people from thinking up new ideas. In fact, these restrictions often push people to be more creative in their approach to problems they face, as has been shown in the recent unrest in Iran. The government's control of traditional media has prompted people to devise innovative methods of using social media to express themselves and communicate with the outside world.
Secondly, the argument assumes that all new ideas are inherently 'good', and therefore any measures that restrict their expression will in turn prevent society from thriving. This is a utopian view of human nature fails to recognise the reality of a society where many ideas are formed based on assumptions and hearsay, rather than facts and knowledge. The public expression and propagation of ideas that are racist or slanderous is unlikely to cause society to thrive, which suggests that in certain situations there is a rightful place for limits on freedom of expression.
Finally, the argument imposes a highly western point of view on the rest of the world, through it's implication that a society that does not change will 'stagnate'. This is contrary to the views of many other cultures, such as Aboriginal Australians, where time is viewed to be cyclical rather than linear. While there is undoubtedly an important place for new ideas in such societies, maintaining certain traditions and ways of life is seen as an integral part of enabling their society to thrive.
In conclusion, the argument is poorly reasoned since it assumes that new ideas are exclusively generated for the greater good of society, and therefore societal restrictions.
This is the first time I've written one of these, so any and all feedback would be appreciated!!
