GRE写作Issue部分精品素材分享之社会契约论

北京GRE培训,GRE备考资料,GRE网课,GRE培训机构,GRE保分班,GRE真题,GRE课程

想要在GRE作文部分的考试中写出优秀的文章，论据素材是重要的一环。好的论据不仅能帮助你支撑观点，加强说服力，还能体现出考生在阅读量上的积累和深厚扎实的语言功底基础。特别是ISSUE作文，更是需要大量好素材作为储备，才能保证考生无论遭遇那种题目，都能游刃有余地完成一篇高分作文的写作。小编为大家整理了GRE

ISSUE作文各类题目的精品优质素材，一起来看吧。

对社会公正的反对

Social justice may be unfeasible economically. Many water-poor countries have

recognized a “basic right to have drinking water” and then provided that access

accordingly. This often resulted in water sources being over-used and then

decimated.

On the other hand, some scholars reject the very idea of social justice as

meaningless, religious, self-contradictory, and ideological, believing that to

realize any degree of social justice is unfeasible, and that the attempt to do

so must destroy all liberty. The most complete rejection of the concept of

social justice comes from the Friedrich Hayek of the Austrian School of

Economics: “The phrase ‘social justice’ is simply a semantic fraud from the same

stable as People’s Democracy.” The purported goal of social justice is to

eliminate economic inequities, but because these inequities are largely a result

of individuals’ own choices, they can only be corrected by controlling said

choices.

对社会公正的批评

Criticism of the idea that there is an objective standard of social justice

has come from several circles. First, there are moral relativists (such as the

Sophists), who do not believe that there is any kind of objective standard for

justice in general. Second, there are cynics who believe that any ideal of

social justice is ultimately a mere justification for the status quo. Third,

there are libertarians who believe that social justice violates the

non-aggression principle. Additionally, postmodernism has also developed its own

critique of the concept of social justice.

Many other people accept some of the basic principles of social justice, such

as the idea that all human beings have a basic level of value, but disagree with

the elaborate conclusions that may or may not follow from this. One example is

the statement by H. G. Wells that all people are “equally entitled to the

respect of their fellowmen”.

社会契约与契约理论

However, the philosophical concept of social contract does not address the

same issues as present-day juridical contract theory, making the name “social

contract” potentially misleading. For this reason some thinkers preferred the

term “social compact”. The key notion of social

contract or compact is that the individual consents by entering or remaining

on the dominion of an existing society, which is usually a geographic territory,

in much the same way one does when entering or remaining in someone’s household

or private property. People are normally brought up from childhood to respect

the boundaries of societies, including families, and the rules made by them for

their territorial spaces. That is part of the socialization development

process.

对社会契约的违反

The social contract and the civil rights it gives us are neither “natural”

nor permanently fixed. Rather, the contract itself is a means towards an end—the

benefit of all—and is only legitimate to the extent that it meets the general

interest. Therefore, when failings are found in the contract, we renegotiate to

change the terms, using methods such as elections and legislature.

Since rights come from agreeing to the contract, those who simply choose not

to fulfill their contractual obligations, such as by committing crimes, risk

losing some of their rights, and the rest of society can be expected to protect

itself against the actions of such outlaws. To be a member of society is to

accept responsibility for following its rules, along with the threat of

punishment for violating them. Most of us are comfortable with laws punishing

behavior that harms people because we are concerned about others harming us and

don’t plan on harming others. In this way, society works by “mutual coercion,

mutually agreed upon”.