People should question the rules of authority as opposed to accepting them passively. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing an

Essay topics:

People should question the rules of authority as opposed to accepting them passively.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the reasons for which the statement may or may not be true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

The subject of the relationship between the governed and the government in a functioning nation-state is as old as government itself. Across different civilizations and within the same civilization, multiple answers have arisen to this question. For example, in the early history of the Islamic civilization political considerations surrounding the relationship of the ruler to the ruled lead to several sectarian splits. Whilst it could be justifiably argued that people should passively accept the rule of their government to protect social harmony and national unity, this is not a position I can reasonably agree with. Thus, in this essay, I argue that it is important for the populace of any nation-state to question the ruling authority. This, however, must be founded upon a common epistemological commitment to reason and civil discourse.

Recent history showcases the disastrous results of populations, willingly or unwillingly, not holding their rulers' to account. When rulers are not held to account, the selfish and misguided part of human nature flourishes due to the fact there is no opposition to their desires. This results in oppressive dictatorships such as that of North Korea, or Nazi Germany. Whilst, the DPRK has, arguably, an impressive sense of national unity, the unquestioned authority of the Kim dynasty has led to economic ruin, famine, and rampant malnutrition, in addition to a populace that is highly misinformed about world affairs. Their unquestioning nature has meant that the ruling dynasty has acquired more and more power at the expense of the population.

If we move beyond dictatorships and focus on democratic societies, it is clear that for a democratic society to function the people must question the ruling dispensation. The better informed the populace, the better a democracy can function. A populace can only become better informed through dialogue and discussion which comes about as a result of questioning current laws and institutions. A poorly informed society results in voters who vote only on the basis of state-provided propaganda and personal emotions. This can have two major effects. First, a society which functions solely on the basis of state propaganda and personal emotion can consequently become a deeply unjust society. One need only to think of the treatment of homosexuals in Vladimir Putin's Russia, or the rising anti-Semitism in Viktor Orban's Hungary to see the result of this.

A second, major effect of an uninformed populace is social and institutional stagnancy. In a democratic society, often a government is more a reflection of the population than vice-versa. If a population does not question the effectiveness or relevance of institutions or legislation then there can be no path for the society to progress. Unjust and outdated laws will continue to exist, such as the recently repealed Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Furthermore, institutions without questioning and renewal will naturally be subject to entropy and will decay until they are no longer fit for purpose. Educational attainment will decrease, health outcomes will decrease unless an enquiring populace exists.

Whilst I believe that an inquisitive populace is important, it must rest upon a common epistemological commitment to reason and finding objective truths. Otherwise, the result is that questioning arises without any logical foundations, and is anchored to personal emotion and basic motivations. This inevitably results in increased partisanship and the existence of a deeply divided society, as seen in the USA. Thus, the encouragement of inquiry in a population must be complemented by a development of critical thinking skills and the growth of a common pursuit of objective truths. In this manner, concerns about national disunity and social disharmony can also be dispelled.

As I have outlined above, a curious and questioning population is essential to ensure social progress, welfare, and justice. The absence of such a population can quickly result in dictatorship, economic ruin, famine, and oppression. However, curiosity must be based upon certain common commitments to truth and reason, which will ensure civil discourse. This is essential if a society is to avoid the ills of anarchy and social disharmony. Progress can only start from the enacted freedom to inquire.

Votes
Average: 6.6 (1 vote)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2019-05-18 harini_123 66 view
2018-10-11 hindia94 66 view
2018-10-01 alarcina 58 view
Essay Categories
Essays by user hindia94 :

Comments

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, first, furthermore, however, if, second, so, then, thus, for example, in addition, such as, as a result

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.4196629213 185% => OK
Conjunction : 32.0 14.8657303371 215% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 87.0 58.6224719101 148% => OK
Nominalization: 37.0 12.9106741573 287% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3683.0 2235.4752809 165% => OK
No of words: 678.0 442.535393258 153% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.43215339233 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.10278680062 4.55969084622 112% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15262683491 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 335.0 215.323595506 156% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.494100294985 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 1184.4 704.065955056 168% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 15.0 4.99550561798 300% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 34.0 20.2370786517 168% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.9576644453 60.3974514979 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.323529412 118.986275619 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9411764706 23.4991977007 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.61764705882 5.21951772744 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 5.13820224719 234% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.83258426966 207% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.113542670569 0.243740707755 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0264805067159 0.0831039109588 32% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0342939672135 0.0758088955206 45% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0564392899809 0.150359130593 38% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0297667047668 0.0667264976115 45% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.1639044944 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.42 8.38706741573 112% => OK
difficult_words: 208.0 100.480337079 207% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.

Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.