Arguments Against Preventative Force

Words: 2013
Pages: 9

Britton Mehanna Mrs. Spencer Writing Seminar 10 21 February 2024 The Argument Against Preventative Force Rough Draft Every individual possesses limitless potential. It is up to individuals to determine whether this potential will lead to extraordinary achievements or catastrophic consequences based on how they channel and manifest this potential according to their beliefs and aspirations. The potential for future violent events within society is an equal threat and it is minimized by several preventative measures to preserve the state in the wake of violent events within society. As seen in post-9/11 society, Americans were traumatized by the threat of another terrorist attack, thusly stating that the Department of Justice's "single objective …show more content…
By continuously monitoring and surveying every aspect of individuals' lives, such a system undermines the very essence of autonomy and free will. The ability to autonomously make choices becomes threatened, limiting the range of our thoughts and actions. In essence, this approach not only adds constraints to personal freedom but also obstructs the development of society by imposing rigid constraints on individual liberties: "Freedom is not conceived negatively as the absence of external coercion or constraints. Rather, it is defined positively in terms of the exercise of self-influence" (Bandura 1182). Furthermore, implementing preventative justice would inevitably lead to violating numerous fundamental rights by placing restraints on personal freedom. As important as the state may be, it should primarily exist to safeguard the rights and interests of its citizens, rather than prioritizing its preservation at the expense of individual citizens. Fundamentally, the notion that a preventative justice system could safeguard society is flawed, as it places the state above the very individuals it should …show more content…
Unthinkingly invoking this duty could lead to abuses of power, where leaders exploit vague notions of "imminent danger" to give themselves more control (Kaufman 23). Furthermore, protection must be balanced against the principles of justice and fairness. A government's duty to protect its citizens should not override the rights of those citizens to freedom of expression, privacy, and due process. It is essential to realise that significant differences in interpreting what constitutes a threat can vary depending on those in power. This could lead to unjustified violations of fundamental human rights. Thus, it is imperative to establish clear and transparent criteria for determining when intervention is necessary. Decisions should be made with full respect for individual rights because every person has an intrinsic worth that others should recognize. Prioritizing the protection of citizens will result in authoritarian and communist styles of government where the very freedoms they seek to protect are removed (Fuster