the prompt was: "people most respect the powerful not when they exercise their power but she, they refrain from exercising it".
Would you say it is good?
I am wondering if i have expressed the opposite argument (the one i am not supporting in my body paragraphs) enough or too much? I am learning from a book and this aspect of the exercise is not too clear.
I would be glad to read yours and give feed back :)
Thank you
Is power an empirical act or an immaterial ability? I find this question worth asking when I notice that more and more people believe that a person using his power deserves less respect than one refraining from using it. Some would argue that power can only exist in action, in particular when it comes to helping someone. In a situation where a person would be attacked or in any dangerous condition should a witness that has the ability to help be respected or should a witness that actually helps be respected? Obviously, anyone would say the right answer is the second proposal.
However, some other would state that the potentiality of it is sufficient. After weighing the evidence, it is certain that, in some different situations, power is more valuable when it is not used: as a way to dissuade but also as a way to avoid inimical behaviors.
The defense of a nation by its army is an example of how power is better staying as a potentiality rather than being used. In deed, an army is being respected and considered efficient when it is strong enough to avoid military attempts toward the country but still does not need to be offensive. This way, a country would save money (a war budget is often huge) and save life (as a lot of people would be in the army but not actually on battle fields). This strategy is a similar one to what can be observed in today's international relationships. A lot of countries are acquiring the nuclear bomb but it is rarely to actually use it: it is mainly in order to dissuade offensive countries to attack. That way, their military power is considered efficient but stays as a potentiality. It is not really exercised (enacted) and it is for the best.
Another case in which power is better considered as an ability rather than as exercised is an altercation between two persons. If one of the protagonists of this opposition is showing a strategy that does not involve enacting his power but rather a calm discussion, he would be respected and considered a well mannered and socially intelligent person. This is what happened during India's quest for independency with the non-violent leading of Gandhi. He encouraged the revolutionaries to avoid violence and instead set a negotiation dynamic. This was very much rewarding because the international organisation of the time went by his side. Gandhi was respected because he did not use the armed power of the people of India to gain independence. Instead he proposed to solve the problem via verbal exchange and is, still today, revered as a national hero for not having enacted this power and thus saving life.
The examples above all support the idea that, in some situations, power is more respected when not exercised. Today's most common use of the nuclear bomb and Gandhi's non-violent strategy of independency are two examples of this highly revered power that is only potentiality.
Eventually, one could say that the real power of all human beings is actually knowing how to use it. If enacting his power when helping someone is very respectable, it is sometimes salubrious to keep it as a potential when it comes to conflict.
These are some things that caught my eye in your Introduction.
Is power an empirical act or an immaterial ability? I find this question worth asking when I notice that more and more people believe that a person using his power deserves less respect than one refraining from using it. Some would argue that power can only exist in action, in particular when it comes to helping someone. In a situation where a person would be attacked or in any dangerous condition should a witness that has the ability to help be respected or should a witness that actually helps be respected? Obviously, anyone would say the right answer is the second proposal.[Right here you are over generalizing with the words obviously and anyone] However, some other would state that the potentiality of it is sufficient. [This sentence contradicts your previous sentence] After weighing the evidence [What evidence? I think the word is to broad] , it is certain that, in some different situations, power is more valuable when it is not used: as a way to dissuade but also as a way to avoid inimical behaviors.
In general I don't think you actually address your opposite argument all that much, other than in your introduction, where it was confusing which stand you were going to take. By recognizing the opposing stance when you are talking about the nuclear bomb you would be having a sentence or two stating what would be the consequences if the nuclear bombs would actually be used. Your recognizing that the opposing stance would decide to use them, because power needs to be exercised, and how probably the demise of populations of people would not be favorable for society. The same reasoning can be used with your second example.
I am not sure if I helped. I actually am barely starting to study for my GREs too. Hopefully this is of some help.
