Firm With Their Ideas And Policy example essay topic

363 words
The issue claims that people who are firmly committed to an idea or policy are the same people who are most critical about that idea or policy. At first thought this statement appears to be true, but careful scrutiny of historical examples reveals that for every historical case supporting the issue's claim there are many others serving to refute it. Thus, as per my opinion, the assertion of statement must be determined on a case-by-case basis. For instance, the people who claim that they have a deep knowledge about certain idea or policy should have cognizance about its drawbacks, flaws and many other problems in it. A firm commitment to an idea or policy requires full confidence in it and confidence is gained only when you are aware of its weaknesses. At this point it seems that commitment and criticism are mutually exclusive.

Nevertheless, in some cases this claim is valid while in some cases it is not. In support to the issue, there are many historical cases where both commitment and criticism seems to appear for same idea or policy. For example, Edward Teller, so called father of atom bomb, was in favor of not using his technology for any kind of destruction and in contrast atomic power is developed for the purpose of total devastation. Moreover, many political leaders, who claim that they believe in peace and well being of the country and used to quote denizens to abhor war wherever they find it, are mostly the cause of originating the war. Conversely, in historical examples there are also innumerable influential individuals who were zealously committed to certain idea or policy but who were not critical of it. For example, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, history's two leading pilots who were against of tyranny and racism, were firm with their ideas and policy.

They were seriously committed to their mission and not in stance to criticize it. To my knowledge, no private writing of any of these historical figures lends any support to the claim that these leaders were particularly critical of their own ideas or policies.