On Arguing Abuse (within a system or model)

On Arguing Abuse (within a system or model)

As we all know abuse is the idea of someone(s) or something(s) exploiting the model or system in question. This form of argumentation is typically used to say that the system of model being debated is flawed or bad.

The issue/idea of abuse can be argued both ways in a debate. In the case of this issue and so many others the case can really be made for either side, and must be evaluated by weighing the status quo and the alternative in a series of cost benefit analyses.

Regardless here are some ideas:

Reasons why Abuse of a system is not a reason to prove the model is bad/flawed

-The potential for abuse exists in everyman made system, as human are not perfect

-We don’t/shouldn’t apply this form of logic to ideas and constructs in society now.

-For example, just because the existence for say a corrupt police officer is possible doesn’t mean we should abolish all police forces. (The potential for police forces to do good far out weights the potential harm of a few officers who abuse the system)

Reasons why potential abuse is a reason to prove the is bad/flawed

-If the model for some reason or other increases the abuse or makes the impact of it on the society worse

-If the model fails to make any change on the level of abuse in the system

-If the model increases the power of the abuser (i.e. allowing the black market to make a higher profit)

For example, when the U.S. outlawed alcohol consumption, but failed to actually affect alcohol consumption because of the presence of speakeasies. Thus the black market gained power because more people’s demand remained the same while the supply of alcohol decreased.