”Any political organization that advocates the use of violence to achieve its goals should be prohibited from operating within our nation. Such groups are detrimental to society since violent, short-term solutions can only lead to more serious long-term problems.”
Discuss how well-reasoned you find this argument…
My Response
The argument that political organisations that advocate violence should be prohibited because they are detrimental to society seems valid on first glance but on closer inpection it is clear that the argument is flawed and unconvincing.
First the author concludes that violent, short-term solutions can only lead to more serious long-term problems, without any proof of this. Pre 1994 in South Africa, the African National Congress was banned for advocating violence against the apartheid regime. Although it cannot be said that this was the only cause for the change in policy surely the rule of Nelson Mandela did not lead to more serious long term problems.
Second that argument assumes that it is correct to prohibit a political party from operating within a nation. No reason is given for why this would be the best approach. If a criteria for banning a political party is that they are detrimental to society who decides whether they are detrimental or not?
Furthermore the argument fails to recognise a situation where violence may be necesary for example in a time of war. If the argument was to be taken literally then any country could invade the "nation", because any political party advocating to protect the nation with force would be prohibited from operating.
In summary the argument that a political organization that advocates the use of violence to achieve its goals should be prohibited from operating within our nation is flawed and unconvincing. It fails to recognise situations where violence has led to better long term solutions and assumes violence is never necessary. Ultimately the argument might have been strengthened by a reason for the link between violence, short term solutions and more serious long term problems. And an example of where this argument has been proven to be true
Discuss how well-reasoned you find this argument…
My Response
The argument that political organisations that advocate violence should be prohibited because they are detrimental to society seems valid on first glance but on closer inpection it is clear that the argument is flawed and unconvincing.
First the author concludes that violent, short-term solutions can only lead to more serious long-term problems, without any proof of this. Pre 1994 in South Africa, the African National Congress was banned for advocating violence against the apartheid regime. Although it cannot be said that this was the only cause for the change in policy surely the rule of Nelson Mandela did not lead to more serious long term problems.
Second that argument assumes that it is correct to prohibit a political party from operating within a nation. No reason is given for why this would be the best approach. If a criteria for banning a political party is that they are detrimental to society who decides whether they are detrimental or not?
Furthermore the argument fails to recognise a situation where violence may be necesary for example in a time of war. If the argument was to be taken literally then any country could invade the "nation", because any political party advocating to protect the nation with force would be prohibited from operating.
In summary the argument that a political organization that advocates the use of violence to achieve its goals should be prohibited from operating within our nation is flawed and unconvincing. It fails to recognise situations where violence has led to better long term solutions and assumes violence is never necessary. Ultimately the argument might have been strengthened by a reason for the link between violence, short term solutions and more serious long term problems. And an example of where this argument has been proven to be true
