- UID
- 867119
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2013-3-14
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
Issue80
40:38
Nationsshould suspend government funding for tha arts when significant numbers oftheir citizens are hungry or unemployed.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Shouldnations suspend their funding for the arts when significant numbers of theircitizens are hungry or unemployed, as the speaker contends? Upon first glancethe statement seems compelling. However, the speaker’s ground is absolute tosome extent while ignoring so many potent evidences to the contrary andtherefore I disagree with the speaker.
Tobegin with, I concede that the speaker is on the right philosophical side ofthe issue for several reasons. First, given that the resources are limited,governments should be careful about where their funding goes and sometimescannot satiate all the different fields in short of funding. This is sad buttrue. It is necessary that governments take a realistic stance when decidingthe allocation of their funding. Secondly, it is undoubtedly that hunger andunemployment are issues more pressing to address than the funding of art. Afterall, according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the basic physiological needssuch as subsistence and safety are the bricks at the bottom upon which higherneeds such as esteem and self-actualization rest. Without satisfying the basicneeds by eliminating starvation and unemployment, families involved will keep onsuffering. It is hard to imagine how will these people come from such familiespossibly have the mood to enjoy arts produced to reflect the beauty andharmony, which, in their eyes, are nothing but cruel lies. On the contrary, byaddressing these problems, the art will be appreciated by a larger audience andhence benefit more from each other.
However,despite being reasonable, the speaker’s statement is too absolute whileignoring the fact that only a relatively small portion of the generalpopulation suffer from hunger and unemployment. After all, hunger andunemployment have been enduring conundrums ever since human society was firstformed. Throughout the human history, the problem of hunger and unemployment,although have been ameliorated, have never been eliminated completely evenonce. Adopting the speaker’s recommendation will lead to a world with no nationat all that will continue funding the arts and therefore the worldwidecitizens, despite hungry or not, despite employed or not, are all deprived ofcertain rightful interest of enjoying arts supported by the government, whichamounts to a significant portion of public free arts. The only access to artsfunded by private groups will soon turned to be prohibitively expensive and notwidely available. As a result, the well-being of global citizens is undermined.
Inaddition, it is not arts funded by the government responsible for the hungerand unemployment at all. There are hundreds of thousands of ways to addresshunger and unemployment issue aside from suspending the funding for arts. It isultimately the government and perhaps the people who are unemployed that shouldbe blamed. For example, the government can undoubtedly cut down its unnecessarybudget to make room for necessary funding to address those issues by downsizingabundant departments or cut down the usage of government automobile or bysimply urging every official to be more sparing. The speaker’s statement hassuch an underlying assumption that arts cannot help alleviate such issues whilethis is not the case. It is universally acknowledged that arts industry is amassive modern industry that offers a great many job opportunities. Think ofthe Slumdog Millionaire, whose production employed hundreds of poor people inthe slum area. Consider how many jobs will one Hollywood offers?
Finally,the government’s funding for the arts is so important that suspending it willlead to the decrease of the overall utility. Without public support, it is lesslikely for arts to be displayed widely for public enjoyment. Without publicsupport, the overall arts atmosphere will be less active and as a result thecitizens will be less creative and happy. It is also important for governmentfunding for arts to support those programs targeted at teenagers, who are thefuture backbone of our society. Lacking enough nurture from arts they will beless likely to develop well-balanced personalities.
Insum, although it seems reasonable to adopt the speaker’s recommendation, it is irresponsibleand unrealistic to adopt it. The influence of governmental funding for arts isso far-reaching and so vital that the suspension of it will lead to untowardresults. In the final analysis I think the speaker’s recommendation is not onlyunfeasible but also ill-conceived so I disagree with him. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2013-3-15 23:24:28
收藏
收藏
楼主
