4 ms·
I was originally thinking along the same lines; this question is quite interesting, to see what kind of response it might elicit. However, after quickly mulling
by Xophmeister 7y ago
I was originally thinking along the same lines; this question is quite interesting, to see what kind of response it might elicit. However, after quickly mulling it over, the really objectionable part is that it presupposes that sending in the military is a good idea. Something that an impressionable, albeit privileged, 13-year-old may take to heart.
It could be turned into a good question quite easily: ask how you might deal with the situation, before you get to the nuclear option, and then how/if you could justify it morally.
- mytailorisrich 7y agoThe scenario of the question depicts extreme circumstances. It does not imply that sending the military is a good idea to deal with any protest.
- Xophmeister 7y agoSure, it doesn't imply using military force in any protest is justifiable. However, presuming the PM commands the army, then it's his decision -- and the context thereof -- that needs to be justified. It does imply that, in this instance, using the army was the right thing to do.
- larnmar 7y agoThe question doesn’t presuppose that sending in the Army was the right thing.
- Xophmeister 7y agoYou're the PM; the army's been sent in, at your command; now you have to justify your decision. Thus it presupposes it was the "right thing" in the PM's context.
- lucozade 7y agoIt doesn't presuppose that the killing is right. It's asking the child to formulate a speech as if they were a PM justifying it. Understanding how public figures use language to justify their actions is a very useful skill. Being able to use language persuasively is also a very useful skill. And it's common practice in these types of exercise to use either scenarios that are difficult to argue or to argue both sides.