Essay Sample (32)
작성자
CLI 아카데미
작성일
2018-10-22 18:47
조회
894
"Of all the manifestations of power, restraint in the use of that power impresses people most." manifestations; apparent sings or indicators
Explain what you think this quotation means and discuss the extend to which you agree or disagree with it. Develop your position with reasons and/or specific examples drawn from history, current events, or your own experiences, observations, or reading.
The above quote implies that human beings react more favorably to a powerful person or party that commands self-discipline than to one that uses power indiscriminately. while this statement might be true in certain situations, it is definitely not true in most situations.
First, one type of situation in which restraint in the use of power impress people is when the person or country against which the power is being wielded is seen as an underdog. For example, in a boxing match, if one boxer is slaughtering and causing severe physical damage to the other, people watching the fight (even the fighter's supporters) usually view the winning boxer less favorably if he continues to hurt the other boxer despite his clear advantage. In other words, if it is apparent that the stronger boxer is going to win from a certain point, people will likely view him more favorably if he physically restrains himself a little. Likewise, if a large and powerful country, such as the United States, engages in a military action against a smaller and less powerful country, like Afghanistan, some people might view the large country less favorably if it uses its unrestrained power against the "underdog". After the terrorist attack on September 11,2001, this was apparent in the words of some European and Asian leaders who encouraged the United States not to act militarily in Afghanistan. These leaders were clearly disappointed when the United States begin its campagin in Afghanistan. From these examples it is clear that restraint in the use of power sometimes impresses people.
However, restraint in the use of power does not always impress people. This is especially true when the party wielding power is seen as morally justified in using it. For example, during World War 2, the United States refrained from becoming involved for five long years. Europen countriessuch as Great Britain, France, Belgium, and even Russia were definitely not impressed with this restraint of power. Using power was seen as morally justified here and was viewed more favorably than restraint of power. Likewise, in 1998, U.S President Bill Clinton was impeached by the U.S Congress, but allowed to retain his office after lying under oath. Some Americans felt that the U.S. Congress acted with too much restraint by allowing President Clinton to remain in office after committing such acts. Here, the use of more complete power was viewed as morally justified by some Americans. In some cases, reatraint in the use of power does not always impress people.
Thus, it really depends on the situation when judging whether or not restraint in the use of power impresses people. In situations where there is a clear power gap between two parties, restraint in using power against the underdog might be viewed favorably. However, in situations where the powerful party is seen as morally justified in using that power, restraint in the use of that power might be viewed unfavorably.
Explain what you think this quotation means and discuss the extend to which you agree or disagree with it. Develop your position with reasons and/or specific examples drawn from history, current events, or your own experiences, observations, or reading.
The above quote implies that human beings react more favorably to a powerful person or party that commands self-discipline than to one that uses power indiscriminately. while this statement might be true in certain situations, it is definitely not true in most situations.
First, one type of situation in which restraint in the use of power impress people is when the person or country against which the power is being wielded is seen as an underdog. For example, in a boxing match, if one boxer is slaughtering and causing severe physical damage to the other, people watching the fight (even the fighter's supporters) usually view the winning boxer less favorably if he continues to hurt the other boxer despite his clear advantage. In other words, if it is apparent that the stronger boxer is going to win from a certain point, people will likely view him more favorably if he physically restrains himself a little. Likewise, if a large and powerful country, such as the United States, engages in a military action against a smaller and less powerful country, like Afghanistan, some people might view the large country less favorably if it uses its unrestrained power against the "underdog". After the terrorist attack on September 11,2001, this was apparent in the words of some European and Asian leaders who encouraged the United States not to act militarily in Afghanistan. These leaders were clearly disappointed when the United States begin its campagin in Afghanistan. From these examples it is clear that restraint in the use of power sometimes impresses people.
However, restraint in the use of power does not always impress people. This is especially true when the party wielding power is seen as morally justified in using it. For example, during World War 2, the United States refrained from becoming involved for five long years. Europen countriessuch as Great Britain, France, Belgium, and even Russia were definitely not impressed with this restraint of power. Using power was seen as morally justified here and was viewed more favorably than restraint of power. Likewise, in 1998, U.S President Bill Clinton was impeached by the U.S Congress, but allowed to retain his office after lying under oath. Some Americans felt that the U.S. Congress acted with too much restraint by allowing President Clinton to remain in office after committing such acts. Here, the use of more complete power was viewed as morally justified by some Americans. In some cases, reatraint in the use of power does not always impress people.
Thus, it really depends on the situation when judging whether or not restraint in the use of power impresses people. In situations where there is a clear power gap between two parties, restraint in using power against the underdog might be viewed favorably. However, in situations where the powerful party is seen as morally justified in using that power, restraint in the use of that power might be viewed unfavorably.