Essay-a-Week Challenge - Week 11
"July 15th: Vices I admire"
Sometimes you’ve got to be bad to be good. Give a defence for one character trait which you think gets a bad rap.
Topics from, A Bookful Blockhead.
For each prompt, write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks: Explain what you think the statement means. Describe a specific situation that illustrates a point of view directly opposite of the one expressed in the statement. Explain how the conflict in between the viewpoint in the statement and the viewpoint in the second task might be resolved.
Deciding that good actions are justifiable and bad actions are not, is often a quickly made judgement. Many politicians campaign on a "do good" strategy, and no one wants to be painted as someone who makes bad decisions. But when dealing with many problems, small or big, one often realizes that making the right choice is often a difficult decision, as getting things done often require being involved dealing with bad people, or making potentially harmful choices. As a result, when bad choices are required in order to achieve good results, these bad choices can also be justifiable.
The common example of needing to be bad involves dealing with an enemy. On the scale of nations, this problem usually involves military or intelligence operations, if not war. War is arguably a bad action - even when fought under the name of justice, war involves murder, the destruction of homes and cities, and invoking fear on other people, including those who are innocent. A country facing a violent enemy, especially when peaceful settlements fail, often has a choice of not fighting, or waging a war. Not fighting could lead to devasting results, making war a viable solution. In order to eliminate or reduce the threat of the enemy, an act of good, countries may have to engage in war, a bad action. Making this choice is often referred to "the lesser of two evils".
To those on the same boat, you're probably aware of what the following is all about. 30 minutes each, spell check disabled, etc. Hopefully the added pressure of each of these going online will somewhat simulate test day anxiety? And now for hitting two birds with one stone - getting some writing practice and catching up on some essays.
For each prompt, write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks: Explain what you think the statement means. Describe a specific situation that illustrates a point of view directly opposite of the one expressed in the statement. Explain how the conflict in between the viewpoint in the statement and the viewpoint in the second task might be resolved.
Prompt: Sometimes you've got to be bad to be good.
Deciding that good actions are justifiable and bad actions are not, is often a quickly made judgement. Many politicians campaign on a "do good" strategy, and no one wants to be painted as someone who makes bad decisions. But when dealing with many problems, small or big, one often realizes that making the right choice is often a difficult decision, as getting things done often require being involved dealing with bad people, or making potentially harmful choices. As a result, when bad choices are required in order to achieve good results, these bad choices can also be justifiable.
The common example of needing to be bad involves dealing with an enemy. On the scale of nations, this problem usually involves military or intelligence operations, if not war. War is arguably a bad action - even when fought under the name of justice, war involves murder, the destruction of homes and cities, and invoking fear on other people, including those who are innocent. A country facing a violent enemy, especially when peaceful settlements fail, often has a choice of not fighting, or waging a war. Not fighting could lead to devasting results, making war a viable solution. In order to eliminate or reduce the threat of the enemy, an act of good, countries may have to engage in war, a bad action. Making this choice is often referred to "the lesser of two evils".
[I realized at this point that most prompts tend to use "always"..., as it's weird to argue for the opposite of "sometimes" (would it be "mosttimes"?). I tried nevertheless, and tried to describe an example for "never".]
On the other hand, it is difficult to gauge whether or not the bad deed will ultimately lead to good. For example, the War in Afghanistan, often depicted by western governments as a necessary evil in order to democratize the Middle East and remove terrorist threats. Choosing to wage a war in the area has not been able to remove the influence of the Taliban and has led to the formation of a corruption-filled government, while all sides have been left with several casualities and wasted efforts. Because people cannot predict the future, it can be argued that the safest position to adopt would be to avoid any bad deeds. Instead of trying to solve corruption by being involved with corruptive powers, the best plan may simply be to only do good - eventually, the bad forces will lose their fuel as governments refuse to deal with them. This step is arguably "the greater of two evils", where the country chooses not to engage in war and suffer the consequences, but as doing evil to escape evil may not necessary work, choosing doing the good thing may lead to the best results without risking any evil in the first place.
Because it is difficult to predict the consequences or rewards of a good or bad action, doing the good action all the time may be safest, avoiding the worst case scenario of doing a bad action that leads to worse results. However, a bad deed is often disguised as a good deed, under the "lesser of two evils" approach. As it is difficult to distinguish a good and a bad action, it's often best to follow the "best" approach, where if the bad deed disguised as a good deed is a better option than even all good deeds, that bad action is justifiable. Thus, sometimes, you've got to be bad to be good, but it must be clear at all times that your ultimate goal is to be good.
On the other hand, it is difficult to gauge whether or not the bad deed will ultimately lead to good. For example, the War in Afghanistan, often depicted by western governments as a necessary evil in order to democratize the Middle East and remove terrorist threats. Choosing to wage a war in the area has not been able to remove the influence of the Taliban and has led to the formation of a corruption-filled government, while all sides have been left with several casualities and wasted efforts. Because people cannot predict the future, it can be argued that the safest position to adopt would be to avoid any bad deeds. Instead of trying to solve corruption by being involved with corruptive powers, the best plan may simply be to only do good - eventually, the bad forces will lose their fuel as governments refuse to deal with them. This step is arguably "the greater of two evils", where the country chooses not to engage in war and suffer the consequences, but as doing evil to escape evil may not necessary work, choosing doing the good thing may lead to the best results without risking any evil in the first place.
Because it is difficult to predict the consequences or rewards of a good or bad action, doing the good action all the time may be safest, avoiding the worst case scenario of doing a bad action that leads to worse results. However, a bad deed is often disguised as a good deed, under the "lesser of two evils" approach. As it is difficult to distinguish a good and a bad action, it's often best to follow the "best" approach, where if the bad deed disguised as a good deed is a better option than even all good deeds, that bad action is justifiable. Thus, sometimes, you've got to be bad to be good, but it must be clear at all times that your ultimate goal is to be good.
Prompt: Impatience is a vice that gets a bad rap, but is a vice that is admirable.
Patience is one of the seven virtues, and is a trait that most people try to display in order to live a morally good life. Consequently, impatience is a vice and is often frowned on by others. Young children are taught to be patient, told to be quiet and wait their turn, and scolded when they ask "are we there yet?" on long road trips. Adults must wait a lot too - for medical scans, returned calls, and at long lines at the supermarket. Being impatient gets a bad rap, no one likes to see a frustrated person tapping their foot and checking their watch constantly, but being impatience can also admirable.
Impatience can result from a bad system, such as an overloaded or underfunded medical system or a bureaucratic government. In these cases, impatience is often the fuel needed to push for reform and making changes to alleviate the long wait times, leading to long term success. One example is the bureaucratic system controlling public education in Washington D.C. Michelle Rhee, appointed in 2007 to lead the city's education department, is a teacher and parent, who was frustrated with the cities public education. Her impatience with the system led to the choice to send her own kids to private school, feeling that the public education system was so poor that the only way to assure her children a good education would be to send them outside the system. Secondly, in her power, she controversially fired hundreds of teachers and principals to remove underqualified individuals. While her predecessors patiently discussed several measures with Unions, government department, and schools, Michelle Rhee took tough measures to get reform accomplished as soon as possible. This impatience that led to reform to improve both public education and her own children's education is admirable.
However, as a vice, impatience can lead to poor results. Under Rhee's term, reports of teachers adjusting the test scores have significantly increased, indicating that there have been other consequences to the impatience of getting measures passed quickly and demanding immediate improvements. In other examples, impatience in construction often lead to flaws and cutbacks. Impatience may get things done faster, but being impatience places the need for speed as the top priority. When one is impatient, they often put safety and other concerns second. A driver late for work is much more likely to run a yellow light and make tight turns that may lead to more accidents. Thus, impatience on its own is not admirable, only its results, when things turn right, seem to be worthy of praise.
Impatience can be a fuel to get things done faster, a source of motivation. There are benefits to being impatient, but if impatience is the main reason to get things done, there are risks of cutting corners and losing motivation if one is forced to wait. Impatience, though it gets a bad rap, can be a force for good and admirable things, but its role in making those things happen must be evaluated. Impatience must never be a priority, but keeping it mind might lead to virtious results.
No comments:
Post a Comment