丹淳老师范文:
According to Longman Dictionary of English, the term “freedom” is defined as doing things without any control and restriction. For example, people can smoke in public freely or driving vehicles emitting toxins and pollutants into atmosphere without taking public health into consideration. However, in reality, it is clear that this kind of “absolute” freedom is quixotic and irresponsible. After all, all around the globe, humans are interdependent of each other for survival, and share the same ecosystem on the same planet. Indulging some’s “freedom” such as smoking in public may temporarily satisfy their ego, however, in the long term, it could devastate the public. Therefore, as the first perspective states, I believe that most of the time, people’s personal freedom should be inferior to public’s well-being.
Admittedly, the second perspective contains some merits in certain areas such as technological innovation and knowledge acquisition. After all, in these areas, without embracing some risks and freewill, the status quo and backward ideas may hinder creativity and a society’s progress. After all, Even America’s former president John. F. Kennedy once said: “Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.” In other words, people should follow their own beliefs to act instead of following others’ views when chasing their dreams. However, noticeably, public health is a completely different arena from technology and knowledge. It belongs to a nation’s ‘basic needs,’ and without it, people can suffer from low life quality and severe disease while the nation can experience instability ( taking second-hand smoke can trigger cancer, and large amounts of gas emission is the direct attributor of Greenhouse effect as well as Ozone Layer Depletion). As renowned American psychologist Abraham Maslow showed, without the foundation of basic needs being fulfilled first, humans’ ultimate freedom is unachievable! Though the second perspective states that “the cost to the physical health of our free society is far too great to justify it.” In reality, the opposite view is true- public physic health should be set as top priority.
Hence, when the majority of people’s well-being collide with small numbers of individuals’ freedom requests (from the first perspective), the individuals’ “freedom” should be restricted for a bigger picture- the whole society’s growth. For example, in today’s many well-developed nations, smoking has been banned in many public spaces such as pubs and parks. By the same token, new drivers are being encouraged to purchase electric cars. Another pertinent example can be cited from China’s “Baby milk formula” scandal. In 2008, due to a few executive’s acquisition for financial “freedom,” “Three Deer Group,” a large milk formula company based in China was illegal marketing and selling of toxic milk products. The result? It was attributed to hundreds of baby’s kidney stone problems and some of their deaths. Though some may argue that the company and its owners have their “freedom” right to conduct such act for financial accomplishments, the price of paying the “freedom”- hundreds of babies’ precious lives- is too high. The whole nation’s parents’ psyche has been negatively affected. Parents are trusting the government and national brands less due to the scandal. In the end, for balance, Three Deer’s executives has been severely punished.
Apart from Three Deer’s scandal, Today’s processed food industry can also exemplify why public well-being is superior to personal freedom most of the time. Supporters of processed food (in this case, various food companies) may argue that they have the right/”freedom” to lure consumers to purchase processed products. However, highly processed (chips and soda) and unnatural food (Genetically-modified) contain high-dose chemicals and preservatives with the potential to stimulate severe health problems such as auto-immune diseases and even cancer. Annually, millions of children are being sacrificed: obesity and type-2 diabetes are killing their health at an astounding pace. From both the examples of Three Deer and processed food, it clearly shows that public health should be prioritized more than individual freedom most of the time.
Similar to the first perspective, the third one – avoiding the health risk is also a freedom, and allowing one’s freedom to endanger others’ ones will lose both health and freedom – strongly displays the essentiality of public health. Without this foundation, nothing else is possible to achieve in the first place.
In a nutshell, as the Nobel Peace Prize Winner, and the global peace icon Nelson Mandela said: “To be free is not merely to cast-off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” Personal Freedom should be intertwined with the public health harmoniously instead of wining it over or becoming its enemy.
编辑推荐:
(责任编辑:马荟)
版权声明:本文系新东方网独家稿件,版权为新东方网所有。转载须注明来源及作者,否则必将追究法律责任。