Imagine that someone, perhaps an eager follower of a new religion or way of thinking, or a socially aware writer, were going around in your country teaching the young people to question old traditions, showing respected elders and social leaders to be fools, and generally upsetting the established moral outlook. Should that person be stopped? What punishment would be appropriate? What, if anything, could a democratic government justly do to stop such a person and her activities?
What do you think? Why?
Actually this issue is very complicate and subtle, they should be considered case by case, because the threats from the new ideas are different and the degrees of the attack are different too. If the movement is conspicuously unreasonable and unlawful, government should do something to prevent the negative consequences.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in general, I think a sustainable society should allow multiple ideas. It is very dangerous for any society to adopt only one kind of moral and refuse all any other kinds of ideas. In the past, many wars were causes by the stubborn attachment to only one ideology and try to destroy other opposing ideas. Imagine that in Germany before WW 2, if the german did not stick to only Nazism and allowed and tolerated other idea, WW 2 should not have occured or should not have been so devastating.
It depends on what beliefs he is spreading. Ones have rights to believe anything they want to believe, they can have followers, and they can follow who ever they want,too.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if the beliefs are against the law, agianst the good culture of the country, if following the beliefs resulting in chaos of the society, the peace of society would be destroyed, that's when they should be stopped.
For the punishment, it also depends on both the actions and the concequences. The leaders should be punished by law. Also, the society may punish them,too. Social norms are not to be dismissed. If a leader influences young people to do or believe in bad things, they should beware of those teenager's families and friends, too.
Roong, re your comment at 3:16 PM,
ReplyDeleteWhat would, and would not, count as bad things when you wrote about "a leader [who] influences young people to do or believe in bad things"?
Is showing that a respected social leader is a fool a bad thing?
Is encouraging the young generally to critically examine their traditions and leaders a bad thing? What if such analysis, done honestly and peacefully, nevertheless leads to actual protests and social division? (Would such protests and division count as "chaos of the society"?)
Is doing something illegal sufficient to make it a bad thing?
I like the point you made, and I think it's worth clarifying a little more exactly what it does and does not cover.