Society is based on rules and laws. It could not function if Individuals were free to do whatever they wanted to do. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Society is based on rules and laws. It could not function if Individuals were free to do whatever they wanted to do. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Undoubtedly, rules and regulations are the foundation of any society. Without them, there will be chaos and people will go astray. Some accept this notion, while others believe in individual freedom. I shall delve deeper into this discussion and share a well-reasoned conclusion in the following paragraphs.

To start with, implementing the legal guidelines are necessary to avoid anarchy in the country as people will be treated respectfully and equally. This will not only protect populace from unlawful activities: theft, robbery, trespassing but also from heinous crime such as rape, murder to name a few, which can be a nightmare for everyone. For example: India has very strict laws for crime against women, and lawmakers keep amending these laws from time to time, resulting in a 40% drop in these crimes. Apart from that, special policies are implemented for the below poverty line population, where they can enjoy all the basic amenities: food, health care, education. A survey was conducted in Indiana University which revealed that countries with special laws for the marginalized afforded them a better quality of life.

Nevertheless, those advocating liberation from these frameworks feel that, restrict individual freedom in terms of innovation and lead to excessive bureaucracy, precipitating  unnecessary hurdles for businesses. However, they have also forgotten that history speaks for itself. Not even a single ruler in history has been able to govern the nation without edicts. Where society progressed and stands today, it is because of all the evolving legal norms that everyone complied with.

 To conclude, I stand in favor of implementing legal procedures for the betterment of society and to bring order to the social environment; the populace flourishes more in well-behaved surroundings  than in a disorderly one.

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

 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

Society is based on rules and laws. It could not function if individuals were free to do whatever they wanted to do. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 

Society is based on rules and laws. It could not function if individuals were free to do whatever they wanted to do. To what extent do you agree or disagree?   

Ever since humans chose  to live in communities, they have been  guided by certain regulations, but of late,  many have been fiercely arguing over the need for such guidelines: some are in favor of conventional set-up, while others dissent.

A school of thought opines that strict norms are must to let inhabitants lead  a safe life that is insulated from unlawful acts. To see this through, various laws are instituted to minimize criminal activities such as thefts, burglaries, rapes, and so on. If measures to curtail unlawful acts  were not adopted, anti-social elements would have a free run jeopardizing public safety. Moreover, many also make a mention of the need for certain conventions to ensure a harmonious social environment to afford an enjoyable life to inhabitants. Steps taken to  keep a check on atrocities against women, animals and elderly, and  drug abuse  to name a few  render a humane outlook to society, and prevent inhabitants from indulging in evil practices.  

Nevertheless,  many, despite being driven by misplaced notions,  debunk the that opinions that lobby for laws, as they propose that these impede free life and  encroach on the privacy of individuals. Society is made for humans and not  vice  versa, as this lobby asserts. The law makers use their power and clout to thrust their will on common people: using their whims and fancies, they dictate their terms  onto others and want the latter to lead the life as desired by a few elite. Most laws instituted, as per them,  are meant to prevent the have-nots from progressing and harnessing their abilities.

Overall, I strongly vouch for the opinion that stands for imposition of certain norms  pivotal to sustaining a harmonious social environment where each inhabitant can exist peacefully and without fear.

Society is based on rules and laws. It could not function if individuals were free to do whatever they wanted to do. To what extent do you agree or disagree.

Society is based on rules and laws. It could not function if individuals were free to do whatever they wanted to do. To what extent do you agree or disagree.

Essay: Laws and regulations are basic foundations of any society and if people were free to operate without any rules, disorder and tumult would descend.  I am in complete agreement with this notion and will discuss the same below.

People need boundaries that safeguard the harmonious social environment. It is impossible to create an order and run it efficiently without guidelines. For instance, the constitution and the laws not just protect the functioning of the state and society but also the fundamental rights of the people to survive without inhibitions. A multi-storeyed project built in non-compliance with construction rules and laws, for example, would be blown away in the storm and be dangerous for occupants. Therefore, any society that fails to establish and  adhere to certain conventions, is highly likely to be self-destructive and be vulnerable to chaos.

On top of that, Actions of the populace shall also be kept under control, else it will be harmful to other inhabitants and the overall system. If people could do anything they wanted, there would be antisocial acts galore exposing civilization to lawlessness. In absence of strict laws, systematic hierarchy and guiding rules, muscle power and money will become the only dominating factors in the functioning of the societal structure, which will be catastrophic. This can be exemplified by citing Rome, which was one of the most developed civilizations in history; however, when Romans started breaching social and civil norms, it witnessed a tragic downfall, the empire weakened and it sunk into oblivion.

In conclusion, I concur that conventions and stipulations render a concrete plinth to an effective social order, but abandoning these  tenets will engender anarchy and dilapidation in the system, impeding any positive developments.