GRE写作备考2012：GRE作文范文大全（20）
How can we reconcile our experience in everyday endeavors with the basic assumption
underlying the scientific method? Perhaps the answer lies in a distinction between two types of
knowledge--one which amounts to a mere collection of observations (i.e., facts and
information), the other which is deeper and includes a realization of principles and truths
underlying those observations. At this deeper level "knowledge" equals "under-standing": how
37
we interpret, make sense of, and find meaning in the information we collect by way of
observation.
In the final analysis, evaluating the speaker's assertion requires that we define "knowledge,''
which in turn requires that we address complex epistemological issues best left to
philosophers and theologians. Yet perhaps this is the speaker's point: that we can never truly
know either ourselves or the world, and that by recognizing this limitation we set ourselves free
to accomplish what no amount of mere information could ever permit.
Issue 32
"The concept of 'individual responsibility' is a necessary fiction. Although societies must hold
individuals accountable for their own actions, people's behavior is largely determined by forces
not of their own making."
I fundamentally agree with the speaker's first contention, for unless we embrace the concept
of "individual responsibility" our notions of moral accountability and human equality, both
crucial to the survival of any democratic society, will whither. However, I strongly disagree with
the second contention--that our individual actions are determined largely by external forces.
Although this claim is not entirely without support, it runs contrary to common sense and
everyday human experience.
The primary reason that individual responsibility is a necessary fiction is that a society where
individuals are not held accountable for their actions and choices is a lawless one, devoid of
any order whatsoever. Admittedly, under some circumstances a society of laws should carve
out exceptions to the rule of individual responsibility--for example, for the hopeless psychotic
who has no control over his or her thoughts or actions. Yet to extend forgiveness much further
would be to endanger the social order upon which any civil and democratic society depends.
A correlative argument for individual responsibility involves the fact that lawless, or anarchist,
states give way to despotic rule by strong individuals who seize power. History informs us that
monarchs and dictators often justify their authority by claiming that they are preordained to
assume it--and that as a result they are not morally responsible for their oppressive actions.
Thus, any person abhorring despotism must embrace the concept of individual responsibility.
As for the speaker's second claim, it flies in the face of our everyday experiences in making
choices and decisions. Although people often claim that life's circumstances have "forced"
them to take certain actions, we all have an infinite number of choices; it's just that many of our
choices are unappealing, even self-defeating. Thus, the complete absence of free WIU would
seem to be possible only in the case of severe psychosis, coma, or death.
Admittedly, the speaker's second contention finds support from "strict determinist"
philosophers, who maintain that every event, including human actions and choices, is
physically necessary, given the laws of nature. Recent advances in molecular biology and
genetics lend some credence to this position, by suggesting that these determining physical
forces include our own individual genetic makeup. But, the notion of scientific determinism
opens the door for genetic engineering, which might threaten equality in 感谢您阅读《GRE作文范文大全（20） 》一文，出国留学网(liuxue86.com)编辑部希望本文能帮助到您。
分享
