http://www.760kfmb.com/story/15078684/daredevil-surfers-banished-to-shore-when-typhoons-hit-in-taiwan
BIG QUESTION: Should the government, for safety reasons, own the right to take away people's individual freedom?
WHY THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD
The mission of the government is to safeguard people's safety. This is why the Taiwanese government sets curfews for teenagers, and prohibits children under six years old to stay home alone. In order to minimize the number of casualties during the typhoon season, the government even cancels work and school days so people can stay safe at home. You could argue that the government is taking away the freedom of people to go to school or go to work. But no one would ever accuse the government for doing so, because WHO WOULDN'T WANT A DAY OFF? Therefore, though it seems less desireable, the government is doing the same for surfing to keep people away from accidents.
WHY THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT
According to experienced surfers, typhoon weather is perfect for surfing because it's when the waves get high, fast, and exciting. In a free and advanced country like America, people emphasize individual rights in their daily lives. People believe that they are responsible for their own choices, such as dropping out of school, doing drugs, selling drugs, and even committing suicide. Therefore, the freedom to go surfing on bad weather day should not be taken away, as people own the rights to make their own decisions regardless to the consequences. This is when the individual power outwins the suppression of the government.
WHAT I THINK
If you are a surfer, ask yourself these two questions before considering to go out on a typhoon day.
1) If people warned you that there is a hole right in front of you, would you walk away from the hole or jump straight into the hole?
2) If you are in the government, how willing are you to rescue people who go surfing on a typhoon day and get into accidents?'
I agree with the Taiwanese law that surfing should be banned when there is a typhoon. In a small country like Taiwan, news travel around really fast. When accidents happen on typhoon days, the government is often criticized for not protecting the citizens beforehand. Also, often when severe accidents happened to those who went to the beach or went hiking, their families often confessed to the media that they would have listened to anything in order to avoid such terrible things from happening. Therefore, the government's "no surfing on typhoon day" law is a sovereign protect rather than an intention to make people's lives more miserable on a boring typhoon day.
While the Taiwanese government is prohibiting surfing for the whole day when there is a typhoon, in a situation like this Monday, when we had a day off but the weather turned out to be beautiful, surfers should be allowed to go out a couple hours after land and sea alerts are off. , I believe there is a way to be more flexible about surfing regulations to ensure both safety and travellers' satisfaction.
SIMILAR CASE
The surfing case could also be related to the case where government censors music with abusive lyrics. While music is supposed to be a free form of expression, the government believes that music with abusive lyrics may not only offend certain groups in the society, but also negatively influence the people, especially teenagers.
When we come down to the root, we can see that the government often has to choose whether or not there should be a regulation on individual freedom for the sake of the public good. It is the government's role to provide the safest possible society for people to live in at the opportunity costs of certain individuals' voices and opinions. And as we can see, in order for the government to achieve its goal, not every voice in the society will be satisfied.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree on your standing on the typhoon issue. In this situation, the government has two choices, either to establish a law that protects the general public, or to take risks and try to satisfy the minority, who are the surfers in this case, and so the question on whether sacrificing individual rights for the safety of the general public is correct can be debated. I think it is right for the government to choose the safety of the general public rather than the satisfaction of a group of minority and risk the lives of others as well as themselves. In order to establish peace and safety in a society, individuals must sacrifice some of their individual rights. For example, the law in Taiwan that prohibits teenagers under 18 to leave their houses alone limits the individual rights of teenagers, but in return, the safety of the community is increased. However, some may argue that by enforcing such a law, it is similar to the government limiting the freedom of the people, and so the area of ethics comes into play. Does the government have the right to limit people’s freedom of action? And is it ethical for the government to take away individual rights?
ReplyDeleteI definitely think it's difficult for one to draw and distinguish the line between what is considered as "the safety of the public". Certainly, as you have mentioned, it's difficult to grant everyone's wishes, especially if they are of the minority. This touches upon the idea of whether or not the lives of individuals are within the jurisdiction of government control, and to what extent the government can decide what an individual can do or must do. As Deborah has also mentioned, the area of ethics comes into play here because the issue of public safety and individual rights still remains in question and is largely debatable. However, if the sole purpose of the government is to provide for public safety and the greater good of the public, how can they successfully do so without protest and rebellions (given circumstances where the situation at hand is more grave)? I think it's difficult to talk about flexibility in terms of crises, like surfing regulations as you have previously mentioned. This is because it's not always possible for the government to attend to the needs of every individual, so certain lines definitely have to be drawn. However, I don't think it's right for the government to abolish surfing rights during Typhoon days because it really intervenes with individual rights and freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteI think that besides the question of ethics, it is also important to take into account language. To truly explore the values and limits of individual freedom, you cannot arbitrarily condemn one kind of violation and applaud the other. You claim that the cancellation of work and school cannot be considered "taking away the freedom of people to go to school or go to work," based on the assumption that "no one would ever accuse the government of doing so" and that everybody would "WANT A DAY OFF." I don't believe that those arguments are valid, as there are definitely people who would complain about the cancellation of work and school - those with important presentations or meetings with clients, as well as those who must go to work but whose children don't have to go school and thus face a dire babysitter dilemma (there were actually multiple news reports about this problem during the last typhoon). Also, a wrongdoing is not any less of a wrongdoing if it is not explicitly condemned. To say so would be to that all crime committed in secret is less reprehensible than that committed openly. I am not suggesting that I have an absolute definition of "freedom violation," only that yours seems a bit too unspecific to be used as the sole foundation of your argument. Thus issuing a "typhoon day" as well as restricting surfing are both breaches of individual freedom. This raises the question of what "freedom" is. Contrary to colloquial use, freedom is not infinite, but bounded by that which does not cause harm to others. Surfers caught in the typhoon would not truly take responsibility for their actions, because they would be endangering the lives of the rescuers duty-bound to save them.
ReplyDeleteAfter that has been established, the question of ethics can finally be addressed. The danger of championing individual freedom is that the general public is often not capable of making informed decisions about what is good for them and for the country, because they have not studied history and politics as extensively as the leaders of our nation. Even in the example of a typhoon, most people will not be able to fully comprehend the destructive power of a typhoon simply by watching the weather channel or looking out the window. The government must provide some form of guidance to help them make the best decision for themselves and for their children. Again, the example of America as being the epitome of freedom is flawed, because American democracy is actually based upon a social contract, where participants consent to surrender some liberties in return for order and justice. The true implications of such an arrangement is that the government has the power to define "safe," "order," and "justice," begetting eras of dictatorships and marshal law which has inflicted more harm than good upon the people. In this case however, I agree that surfing should be prohibited because there is no ambiguity regarding the dangers of a typhoon.