Basing society off the thought that everyone must be kind to everyone seems like an awesome idea, and it seems like world peace would finally exist. People would not have to worry about being shot on the street, and such, if they could count on everyone being loving. The world would be such a happy place. If being loving and kind to each other was our standard, with nothing else required, there would be less fighting and less frustration. But would everyone follow the rule? Or even a majority? If one family out of the world decided to raise their children differently and create new notions for how to run society, other than merely with love, these new ideas could spread and the love love love idea would be destroyed. But, does creating a set government and rules create groups who are against each other and who hate each other? Also, it is against human nature to ask everyone to get along. People naturally get annoyed with each other and disagree and, eventually, do something about it, which is what creates trouble and fighting and wars. Even by asking everyone to agree to disagree, we are asking for everyone to treat each other lovingly and kindly. Society tends to fall into disarray without a set of rules and a ruler, and this requires asking something of everyone, to follow along. If there was no ruler or rules, people would not feel motivated to do anything, except love everyone. Which is lovely until someone doesn't want to love everyone, which is where society's rules come in. So, in conclusion, I agree that love is not enough. We need more structure (rules), but I think we also need to retain the underlying theme of love in life.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Is love enough?
Question B: The Beatles sang that “All we need is love.” However, Confucious held that, even if it were possible, treating everyone lovingly would not create a harmonious social order. He posited that li, respect for ritual and custom, was an important and necessary counterforce to pure jen, or good will and benevolence. Do you agree that a civil and social stability cannot be based merely on being kind and loving to everyone? If not, what else is needed? Explain your answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you when you say people naturally get annoyed with each other. I think if people didn't get annoyed and didn't stand up for their opinions then everyone in the world would be passive and no one would be able to lead. People's opinions are what make them different and original. I like your idea about having an underlying theme of love. Although it is not enough for a society, it is always good to have as an underlying theme in a society.
ReplyDelete"If being loving and kind to each other was our standard, with nothing else required, there would be less fighting and less frustration. But would everyone follow the rule?"
ReplyDeleteI do think that everyone would follow the rule. From my interpretation of the question it seems as if being loving and nice is ingrained in our minds from birth and I think that would cause everyone to raise their children like that, therefore the love love love rule would not be destroyed.
I too agree with you statement. People who come from a safe calm environment, have a easier outlook to adjusting to a to the idea. As I was also trying to say, it is in human nature to have ill thoughts and to be bothered by others. not everybody is capable fo getting along.
ReplyDeleteSara, you do a nice job holding off on a position until the end, but you make the mistake of assuming what it is you're supposed to prove. You write, "Basing society off the thought that everyone must be kind to everyone seems like an awesome idea, and it seems like world peace would finally exist. People would not have to worry about being shot on the street, and such, if they could count on everyone being loving." Why do you think people being kind to you will result in happiness and social order? How would school work? Would speed limits be enforced? Think this through.
ReplyDeleteRemember, this is the heart of the question (Is love ENOUGH?), not whether we can achieve it or not. I want to know if a society governed solely by love and kindness is even worth trying to achieve. See where I'm coming from?
Also, you say we need rules and rulers, which is a very sweeping statement. What kind of rules? What kind of ruler?