Prompt: "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."
Assignment: 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 author concludes that if a society is to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated. Author's line of reasoning is that without new ideas, any society will stagnate and new ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. This argument is unconvincing for several reasons.
RESPONSE
Firstly, author assumes that the expressed idea shall reach only the intended audience. However, today's world is highly connected. Any communication, if not properly censored shall reach the unintended audience. For instance, idea of gay GMAT can be acceptable in one culture; however it can be highly unacceptable in some other cultures. Under such circumstances, free flow of ideas can lead to disruption of harmony. Thus, while freedom of expression is a fundamental right for all human beings, there are some moral duties attached to it. These moral duties help put required limits on freedom of expression and thus maintain harmony in the world.
Secondly, the argument is based upon questionable premise that new ideas can be introduced only in a society that removes all limits on freedom of expression. Even now, movies have to pass censor board tests. Still, many new movies based on new ideas are released very frequently. Similarly, many new discoveries have taken place. Thus here the author provides no evidence to support this crucial premise.
Thirdly, with complete freedom of expression of ideas, out of self interest some people might leak out someone else's ideas projecting those as their own. Therefore, every idea has to pass through patent filing process. Patent filing ensures that fruit of idea generation goes to the idea generator and not to some one else. Thus again idea should not be expressed through complete freedom.
In conclusion, to convince me that all limits should be removed from freedom of expression, the author would have to provide evidence that checks are not needed to ensure the intended idea shall reach only the intended audience and that new ideas can be introduced only in the societies which have no limitations over expression of freedom. Without this additional evidence, I am not convinced that all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated.
Assignment: 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 author concludes that if a society is to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated. Author's line of reasoning is that without new ideas, any society will stagnate and new ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. This argument is unconvincing for several reasons.
RESPONSE
Firstly, author assumes that the expressed idea shall reach only the intended audience. However, today's world is highly connected. Any communication, if not properly censored shall reach the unintended audience. For instance, idea of gay GMAT can be acceptable in one culture; however it can be highly unacceptable in some other cultures. Under such circumstances, free flow of ideas can lead to disruption of harmony. Thus, while freedom of expression is a fundamental right for all human beings, there are some moral duties attached to it. These moral duties help put required limits on freedom of expression and thus maintain harmony in the world.
Secondly, the argument is based upon questionable premise that new ideas can be introduced only in a society that removes all limits on freedom of expression. Even now, movies have to pass censor board tests. Still, many new movies based on new ideas are released very frequently. Similarly, many new discoveries have taken place. Thus here the author provides no evidence to support this crucial premise.
Thirdly, with complete freedom of expression of ideas, out of self interest some people might leak out someone else's ideas projecting those as their own. Therefore, every idea has to pass through patent filing process. Patent filing ensures that fruit of idea generation goes to the idea generator and not to some one else. Thus again idea should not be expressed through complete freedom.
In conclusion, to convince me that all limits should be removed from freedom of expression, the author would have to provide evidence that checks are not needed to ensure the intended idea shall reach only the intended audience and that new ideas can be introduced only in the societies which have no limitations over expression of freedom. Without this additional evidence, I am not convinced that all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated.
