Conclusion: Society and the government have
a right to prevent people from committing crimes or deeds that hurt society,
and may punish individuals for these deeds, but may not hold people responsible
for actions that affect only themselves (292)
1.
It is the role of government to protect its people (I 293)
a)
The government is not justified in preventing actions that encroach upon
citizen’s liberties
(I 293)
i.
The government is not justified in stopping trade (293)
-
Stopping trade does not benefit citizens (293)
-
It does not change the price or quality in a way that helps
society (293)
-
Trade is an act that affects society’s interests
-
Because trade affects society it is society’s role to govern
it (293)
b)
It is not the role of government or society to stop people from performing
actions that
will only harm themselves (I 293)
i. Caution should be given to people when they might harm themselves,
but they
should not be punished for actions that
might cause harm to themselves (294)
2. Even if an action may hurt
members of society, society and the government are not always
justified in
preventing the person from completing this action (293)
a) It is better for society to pursue things even though they might
hurt or
disappoint
others in doing so (293)
b) Sometimes we cause pain to others when we try to attain something
justifiable (293)
i.
Like when we stop someone from attaining something they desired
(293)
ii.
Institutions often cause conflict between individuals (293)
iii.
It is ok to cause others pain or disappointment in the case of work,
exams or contests
(293)
c) It is ok for society to intervene in actions that harm members of
society
(294)
3. Society may give advice to
people, as long as the advice does not harm others or solely
benefit themselves
(I 296)
a) If people have the right to take whatever actions they please so
long as they do not harm
members of society, then society should
have the opportunity to counsel them (296)
b) Society should not be allowed to offer people advice when the
advice benefits the person
giving the advice (296)
4. Individuals are not
responsible for actions that affect only themselves (293)
a) Individuals actions that affect only themselves do not harm
society (I
293)
i.
The only way people can express disapproval for actions that
affect
only one person is through “advice, instruction, avoidance
and persuasion” (296)
5. Society and the government
are justified in punishing people who commit crimes that
negatively impact
members of society (293)
a)Society and the government has
the right to take preventative measures to stop crimes that
may hurt society
from occurring
i.
Actions that make members of society uncomfortable and
aren’t
good manners should be prevented (295)
ii.
Putting precautions in place does not encroach upon
people’s
liberty when it is protecting other members of society (295)
b) It is the responsibility of the
government to protect it’s people (I 293)
I can't explain the formatting of the post. It looked fine in the preview.
ReplyDeleteGreat argument! And don't worry too much about the formatting, it really isnt that hard to follow along with. For your first argument though, I'm just confused as to why trade is not something the government should be allowed to control? I do understand that it affects society in some ways and it does affect people individually, specifically the workers. But this argument is the least personal of all the arguments you listed. Trade is a type of business, unlike much of the other examples you give (ie: actions of a person or advice). Those are much more personal, so I guess what I'm trying to say is government is justified in stopping trade because it is not an individual action and does not have to deal with crime (unless its illegal trade, which I'm guessing is not what you are referring to).
ReplyDeleteMaybe I just misread your post and don't understand it, and I would love clarification if thats the case. Your other arguments though make complete sense and really help to prove your first overall statement. Great job!
This is very well outlined and provides a nice layout to both society AND government having a role in punishing crime. One part I did not understand was what is defined as a "justifiable" action. There are two instances in the outline where a "justifiable action" is used when stating that the action may cause harm to others. I don't see how an action can be considered justifiable if there is a risk of harming others. Those two phrases seem contrary to each other. Also, I think in the beginning of the outline, the fact that actions only affecting the person performing the action do not affect society was repeated at the end of the outline. One last small adjustment I would suggest would be that the way in which government or society punish an individual was not clearly explained. The outline did a great job of showing how they prevent such actions, but not introducing the types of punishment that come equipped with those actions.
ReplyDeleteOverall, your outline made the argument easy to follow. All of your premises were supported with sufficient evidence from the text and had a lot of detail to back up the premises.
Your outline is well organized. You successfully state that the role of society and the government is to take appropriate measures that secure the safety of all members of society. However, premise 2 confuses me because it appears to contradict your conclusion that the role of society and the government is to secure the well being of society. In premise 2 you state that although a person’s action may hurt members of society, society and the government is “not always justified” meaning not in their right to protect society. Is this what you mean? Essentially, premise 2 then contradicts your claim in 2c that it is okay for society to intervene. Lastly, I am curious to what kind of advice are you referring to in premise 3. Besides, my issue with premise 2 your outline is clear.
ReplyDeleteI included premise two to provide an exception to the rule when government should not punish people for doing something that might hurt society. The exception is when someone is seeking to gain something such as a promotion or winning a contest. If they receive this gain, other members of society will be hurt or disappointed that they did not get it, but that does not mean that the recipient should be punished for trying to attain a goal (293).
ReplyDeleteI like the outline a lot. This topic is interesting, to think about where to draw the line between what the government should be held responsible for and what is none of their business. I think this post does a very good job in highlighting the basis of the concept, e.g. society vs government and what they should act upon/leave be, like in premise 3 when you state that society and the government can strongly suggest things but do not have total control over enforcing these "suggestions." This concept, and the controversy attached to it, is exemplified when talking about euthanasia and what role the gov't should play in allowing or disallowing it.
ReplyDeleteOverall great post, however I have to agree with Joe. I don't think that government is unjustified in stopping trade. This can easily be related to the current situation our own country is in. The US does too much importing and this ultimately affects the number of jobs in our own country. Stopping trade may be one way to combat this issue but I feel government has the right and responsibility to reform policy to make us not so reliant on importation. So I would have to say that government does have the right to stop trade if the main goal would be to help its economy and people. Also I think premise 5 is great. You do a great job of proving your premise. Just out of curiosity, do you think you would agree with it if you were the one who committed a crime?
ReplyDeleteThis is a great argument outline. My only question is with the second premise. I am a little confused as to how it is determined when it is appropriate for the government to intervene. When is it alright for the government to stop someone from harming another? I think that it is a blurred line as to when it is just for the government to intervene in these affairs. Our debate today on euthanasia is a good example. Is it alright for the government to outlaw euthanasia because it harms a member of society? Or is that the government overstepping the boundary? The rest of your premises really do help with the reading.
ReplyDeleteThis outline is really great, and I was confused with your contradictions in premise 2, like Steffanie. But I understand now after reading your comment. This outline is great, and really interesting in determining what a government's role is in society. My only problem with this outline is the clarity of your conclusion in premise 4. Perhaps you could change "responsible" to "guilty" or "the government cannot punish an individual for doing actions that only affect themselves." Besides that issue, this outline is really nice!
ReplyDelete