From our son's latest assignments from "Molding Your Argument" - We've posted his submissions pro and con for movie censorship. The assignment is to write like St. Thomas Aquinas. In Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas presents his arguments in articles that have a specific structure:
1. A specific yes-or-no question. "Whether..." (utrum)
2. List of objections that begin with "It seems that...". The objections should be apparent proofs to the opposite of the thesis (aka
the opposite of the debate) - and should be arguments, not opinions (supportable by evidence) (oportet)
3. Indicate own position - "On the contrary..." - (sed contra) usually argument from authority.
4. "I answer that.." (respondeo dicens)- Thomas proves his own case - provides more background explanations. Aquinas explains how each objection went wrong.
With his permission, our son agreed to let us post his assignments:
PRO: It seems that Hollywood movies should be censored.
Objection 1: There have been professional studies that would appear to indicate that media violence increases real-world violence.
Objection 2: Movies can have a powerful desensitizing effect on morality. Studies have confirmed that people who are repeatedly exposed to media violence tend to be less disturbed or physiologically aroused when they witness real world violence, and have less sympathy for its victims.
Objection 3: There have been many confirmed instances in which violent movies have had a direct role in inspiring people to inflict pain, suffering, and death on others. At least nine murders around the world have been directly linked to the slasher film Scream.
I answer that: The right for movies to be free from censorship should be protected. Our country is founded upon principles of freedom of expression, and freedom of expression is necessary for a thriving democracy to have differences of opinion freely discussed, debated, and considered. Censoring objectionable content cuts off free discussion of controversial issues, and it can stifle opposing political opinions.
Reply to Objection 1: As violent media is constantly produced, the rate of violence among children has actually gone down.
Reply to Objection 2: The standards of moral behavior differ between people, religions, and cultures; different people have different reactions to media violence.
Reply to Objection 3: Mentally-unstable people may have negative reactions to media violence, but one has to consider the intent of the director. Is he glorifying violence, or is he portraying it in a negative light?
CON: It seems that movies should not be censored.
Objection 1: Many claim that censorship is in opposition to freedom of expression, and that it is in direct opposition to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." Prohibiting content cuts off discussion of controversial worldviews, they say, and it can stifle opposing political opinions.
Objection 2: Some have said that there is no evidence that media violence has a notable effect on the public at large. Violence and immorality have been ubiquitous since the time of Adam and Eve, and they cannot always be prevented by media regulation.
Objection 3: Censorship is difficult to successfully regulate. Different people and cultures have different standards of morality; it is difficult to decide on a single standard of morality by which to prohibit objectionable material.
I answer that: Movies should be censored because messages of extreme violence and overt sexuality are harmful to the mental well-being of viewers and, ultimately, to the community as a whole.
Research in the field of psychology has shown that violence in the media increases aggression. Also, in the cases of murder and other serious crimes inflicting pain and suffering, perpetrators have admitted that movies had a role in inspiring their actions. Finally, movies have a powerful desensitizing effect on morality so that extreme negative images of sexuality and hatred can be a corrupting influence on impressionable audiences.
Reply to Objection 1: The protection of freedom of speech was never meant to endanger the lives of others, as media violence does. The Constitution also grants people the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and media violence influences people to violate those unalienable rights.
Reply to Objection 2: Movie censorship might not prevent all immorality, but it would prevent some of the more severe instances. There have been several confirmed instances around the world of mass murderers being directly influenced by slasher films.
Reply to Objection 3: Our legislative and judicial system regulate morality all the time in terms of physical interaction and in terms of intention.
References: Peter Kreeft's excellent Summa of the Summa
Picture from Thomas Aquinas
No comments:
Post a Comment