Wednesday, November 28, 2007

What is the ethos of this argument? What is the essence of the argument? Upon what are people actually disagreeing? I think the ultimate question of this argument is "Does society have a role to play in the lives of the poor?"

I have made a list that organizes the general thoughts on the ethos of the argument. Notice that these are the most prevalent opinions among people, and I am not agreeing/disagreeing with any part/s of the list.

No, society has no role.

Drugs/Alcoholism

Bad life choices

Lack of personal responsibility

Lazy

Desire Sympathy


Yes, society has role.

Safer on streets than in neighborhoods

Society owes something to it’s individuals.

Abandonment

Lack of Government work programs

Profit driven commercialism (property goes to highest bidder)

We’re Apathetic

Amount of welfare received by famlies.

Situation is not their fault (abandoned my husband), so society should help


Implications

But what are the implications of this argument? Like any serious argument, a negative peace develops. When one side is winning out, the losing side does everything in it's power to win. Once it does, the roles are reversed. This creates a win/lose cycle that is enveloping to anyone involved.

No comments: