Society is based on rules and laws. It could not function if individuals were free to do whatever they wanted to do. However, others disagree and say that they should be allowed freedom. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Agree
Lack of laws will precipitate lawlessness/ anarchy
There will be inequality
Certain norms also define civil behavior
Allows perpetuation of traditions and culture
Disagree
Some think that this can quell creativity
Some even think that rules are made by rich to overwhelm the poor
T
A school of thought supports complying with certain social norms, and legal frameworks, to create a conducive social environment, but the other section proposes liberation from any such setup. The following paragraphs shall analyze both the views, and highlight the relevance of the former opinion.
To start with, making it mandatory for everyone to adhere to the enacted edicts, can help ensure bringing order to a social arrangement by aiding in circumventing anarchy, so as to allow citizens to lead their life peacefully, and without inhibitions of being harmed by unlawful elements. For instance, every country has appropriate regulations in place to penalize those infringing laws and causing damage to others.
Similarly, these settings empower every inhabitant of the nation to exercise their rights to access fundamental amenities like government support, education, and health among others, and also, fight against injustice. To corroborate, the Indian government has imposed special guidelines and provisions to safeguard and protect the homeowners from being defrauded by those constructing houses. This has effectively curtailed malpractices by the builder lobby that was prone to cheating the middle and low income groups.
Nevertheless, those rebelling against following any convention or norms put forth unsubstantiated allegations such as the rules be only defined to shield the effluent and influential, exploit the deprived and marginalized, and suppress them while benefiting the former. However, even historically, such bias has been sporadic and never received support from any regime or rulers, otherwise society would never have developed where it stands today.
To cap it all, strictures and conventions insulate people from lawlessness, and disarray, and at the same time, equip them with privileges to defend themselves and their assets, and in the process, nipping the evil in its buds and protecting society from going astray.
Traditionally, every community and nation has enacted certain norms and legal frameworks to organise the social environment, affording it an orderly facade and internal functional mechanism, but the other section there is up and arms against such a setup and advocates liberation from such surroundings. I feel complying with the latter view could prove to be a recipe for disaster.
Intro2
The debate surrounding the issue of complying with certain social norms and legal frameworks is the most heated: while some wholeheartedly lend their support to this system, others advocate liberation from any boundations. The former view is founded on a well-thought and judicious philosophy, and thus, deemed acceptable.
Intro3
