▶ Your Answer :
An intriguing topic of discussion at hand
is whether it is sometimes acceptable to infringe upon people’s freedom. The
answer to this question can vary greatly depending on the individual
perspectives. Thus, the jury may still be out, but as far as I am concerned, I
agree with the statement. In this essay, I will present two reasons supporting
my standpoint as follows.
First and foremost, from the microscopic
viewpoint, there are a number of incidents to be dealt with on the national and
international level, not on the individual level. According to the theory of
social contract, people gathered together for conserving their right by
building the new governments. This indicates that one’s free life cannot be
maintained without any help from the power that people united. Suppose a
hypothetical situation: Were you to face a robber on the dark road that no one
is there, for illustration, you will call the police in order to protect
yourself from a vicious robber.
On top of that, from the macroscopic
viewpoint, an individual do not always have the right for freedom above in
relation to the other’s right. Take the constitution in Korea: People have the
freedom only in terms of not invading others’ right for freedom. Accordingly,
the punishment which deprives a man of the liberty performs to a person if they
infringe the liberty of others. Even though no one denies that an individual’s
liberty is the basic premise in order to live humanlike, it is more justifiable
to contend that as far as one have his or her right, other people also have their
precious right.
In conclusion, I strongly argue my
standpoint on account of two reasons mentioned above. Once again, although the
verdict may still be out, I strongly believe that two of my rationales above
are sufficiently enough to represent the viewpoint of a majority of people who
are in favor of my claim. |