Some people may believe that the ideals of people in the places of authorization should be trusted wholly and shouldn’t be challenged ; nevertheless. even though the people in authorization may be professionals and leaders in their field of expertness. it is still necessary to dispute what they say is true. By sometimes disputing the thoughts and determinations made by the people in authorization. it helps people go more cognizant of their ain rights and take further action to protect them. Through disputing the thoughts of governments. it can besides assist governments go more cognizant of the picks they make because of the bulk invariably reviewing and double-checking the things they claim to be true. This can be demonstrated in the Edward Snowden Affair in the U. S. and Greek calamity Antigone. where the belief that sometimes it is necessary to dispute what people in authorization claims to be true is farther depicted.
To get down with. the thought that what people in authorization claim to be true should be challenged dramas out in the Edward Snowden Affair. Edward Snowden. former contractor of the National Security Association. leaked information about invasive mass surveillance patterns used against the citizens of the United States. It consists of roll uping everything a user does on the cyberspace utilizing the XKeyscore plan. which allows authorities functionaries to shop through an individual’s electronic mail. confab. and internet browse history. This pattern used on the U. S. citizens was claimed by the authorities as an act of guaranting security in the United States.
However. the classified information leaked by Snowden indicates that this pattern was even inflicted on people who weren’t suspects of offenses. hence doing great difference between the authorities and its people on the uprightness of this mass surveillance undertaking. If the citizens of the United States did non dispute what the authorities claimed to be a good and security ensuring for them. they would’ve had their privateness invaded. and valuable personal information collected by authorities associations could potentially set them in danger. This illustration to the full supports the thought that it is necessary to dispute what people in authorization claim to be true.
Similarly. the Grecian calamity Antigone besides attests to the thought that it is necessary to dispute the ideals of people in authorization. Antigone. a Greek calamity written by celebrated dramatist Sophocles depicts the narrative of supporter Antigone who seeks to keep a respectful entombment for her brother who sacrificed his life in war. In Ancient Greek. a burial that consists of certain rites shows respect non merely to the deceased. but besides to the Gods ; nevertheless. King Creon refused to allow this entombment in order to prove the impact of his power as male monarch.
Antigone. who realises that the prohibition non merely dishonours his brother. but besides defies the Gods. made it her mission to keep a respectful entombment for her brother. She challenged Creon with her continuity to host the entombment. Even in Grecian calamities. characters are able to exemplify the thought that it is necessary to dispute what people in the place of authorization claim to be true. Harmonizing to the drama. if Antigone hadn’t challenge Creon’s orders. the Gods would’ve inflicted risky pestilences on drouths onto the people of Greece. which portrays how much injury people could be in if the thoughts of the authorization wasn’t tested.
Ultimately. it is right to state that it is sometimes necessary to prove what the people in authorization claim to be true. The picks and thoughts that the people in important places promote may non ever be the most good to their people. hence. it is our duty to step in and do certain that their determinations do non occupy our rights and is good for the society as a whole. This is evidenced by both the Edward Snowden matter and Antigone. which illustrate the importance of us taking portion in assisting the authorization make better picks for our community. which means on occasion disputing what they claim to be true.