Originally Posted by redmax

RIGHT TO DO A THING DOES NOT MEAN IT IS RIGHT TO DO THAT THING


Outline:(Dont give numbers to the bullets of outline)
I. Introdcution
II. State and the Individual
III. Israel and the International Aid Flotilla
IV. Executive of the State and his second fiddles
V. Media and the right to cover incidents
VI. Judge and a delinquent (Write them in statements rather than heading words to clear short view point what you're moving towards)
VII. India, Pakistan and Indus Water Treaty
VIII. Conclusion

Essay:
A few things are best said when left unsaid. Similarly, a few rights are best exercised when they are left unexercised. The right to a thing must only be put into effect when its auspiciousness is ensured. In case exercising a right engenders injustice and inequality, such a right may be banished prior to its implementation. In the same, one’s prerogative to a certain thing does not rationalize in itself for executing that right. On the contrary, not exercising one’s right may prove utilitarian as well as benevolent sometimes. The utility of a right lies in its tendency towards culminating healthy ends.(Good start, delicate one, but kindly make it a little lengthy, i mean add 3-4 more lines to make it look like a paragraph)

The exercising of a right can be right as long as it sticks the purpose of serving right cause(redundancy, right-right,rephrase the sentence again, dont start with gerunds). Any aberration in the outcome of exercising a right that may lead to deplorable results would be a violation of the sacred sanctity of rights itself. The right becomes wrong when it does not bring positive results. It also becomes wrong when it causes injustice, inequality and enmity among masses.(wEhen you're continuing same thing dont make separate sentences rather stick to one, mean join them with conjunctions) What differs right from wrong is its ability to deliver justice to everyone irrespective of caste, colour or creed. It is however, very important that the application of a right must be on the basis of constitution or any other legal document. The carte blanche is by no means equipped with impunity. Thus, it is pertinent to contemplate whether or not it is right to exercise a right that one has over something or somebody.(Very good paragraph but why are you concluding it, make it open ended sentence for the next para)

State is an entity which derives it authority from its people(It should not be a barren sentence, start with an argument). People willingly part with their freedom partially and let state secure their individual freedom by legislation while hey follow and comply with it. Thus, state gets the right to legislate and control the conduct of its citizens. Now, when a state disrespects this right and intervenes in individual’s freedom, as was witnessed in France when president Nicolas Sarkozy signed a bill that put a ban on wearing veil (Hijab) in public places. The Muslim women were particularly victimized by this law. This was an obvious breach of individual freeeodm and misuse of right to legislate. Such a right when practiced inappropriately becomes a blunder. It is there not always right to exercise a right only because one has the prerogative to do so.(avoid repitition, dont dodge examiner he knows what you have already written)

Every state has the right to safeguard its territories.(Again same mistake, start with your point of view every para rather a blunt sentence or phrase) This right is observed under all circumstances. Nevertheless, this right does not endow any state to kill the interlopers that pass through its territorial vicinities, unless otherwise in a state of officially declared war. What the world witnessed on 31st May, 2010, in the international waters surrounding Middle East, the brutal assault of nine Turkish humanitarian organization representatives on board of a ship carrying aid to the hapless Palestinians, was a coward act disguised under cloak of “right to defend” its territory by Israel. This right does not extend to international waters under the text of International Sea Law. Consequently, this enraged the international community, exacerbated the bilateral relationships between Turkey and Israel and won condemnation of international community for Israel. The banishment of such a right could have saved Israel from disgrace. It is there true to assert that the right to do a thing does not mean it is right to do that thing.

An executive has this right to terminate an employee from the office. This right will stand valid as long its application bears some positive results. (If you had joined them it would have been an excellent argument o start with)Where the results may not be in favour of masses at large, and to the contrary they serve the purpose of an executive only, the validity and the very spirit of that right dies out. The unjustified sacking of chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry by erstwhile president of Pakista, Pervez Musharaf, was blatantly an abuse of his right as an executive(Who blatantly abused the right of executive powers). While he had the right to sack anyone, it was out rightly not right to sack a chief justice to satiate his own own motives. This was rightly pointed out by the public and his restoration earmarked the blunder of an executive. Hence, it stands verified that the right to do a thing does not mean it is right to do that thing.

Media, in every country of the world has this right to collect information, cover incidents and broadcast them(Good start). Its role in disseminating information to masses is essential. Nonetheless, this right comes packaged with responsibility. This is to ensure that the media should not misuse this right. Conversely, the publication of caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) in Dutch print media speaks volumes of their ill-treatment of the media’s rights. There is no right in any constitution of the world which legitimizes the sacrilege and exonerates the desecrater. Media’s right to inform public is manipulated and consequently chaos is created among the common people by such unethical deeds. To the bewilderment of sensible souls, the local media in Pakistan covered the tragic incident of Plan crash in the capital city, Islamabad, with insensitiveness. They did not even refrain from showing amputated organs of the fate-struck people who met their death in tragic incident. This obvious infringement of the ethical standards infuriated the kith and kin of those lifeless souls. Both Dutch and local media acted in patent oblivious of scruples and masked their mischief under guise of “right to cover incident” and “freedom of expression”. Nevertheless, their rights were squandered and were not meant to be applied here. For this reason, it stands substantiated that the right to do a thing does not mean it is right to do that thing.
(good)
Consider a delinquent appearing before the tribunal in a court of law. As per the word of law, the judge hearing the case has the right to proclaim the young offender guilty and sentence him to imprisonment, if evidence is found against the wrongdoer. The right of the judge to punish a convicted mischievous child, duly authorized by law, would only be right when delinquent is sent to a reformatory instead of penitentiary where he would turn out to be a law abiding citizen in the due course of time. On the contrary, if the delinquent is sent to prison, his criminal tendencies would sprout further putting his life in jeopardy. In this manner, the right of the judge would turn out to be wrong as it engenders deleterious end. It is therefore reasonable and wise to believe that the right to do a thing may be desisted if its likely to cause harm to people. Hence, the moot remains testified that right to do a thing does not mean it is right to do that thing.

The Indus Water Treaty (IWT) signed between Pakistan and India, mediated by World Bank to distribute the water resources between the two countries, authorizes India to build small dams on the rivers that pass from its territory. This accord endows India with the right to construct small dams on the rivers which upon entering Pakistan become Pakistani rivers. If India chooses to exercise her right and builds dams, it will deprive Pakistan of a few thousand cusec water per day. On the other hand, if India chooses to become a benign neighbour to Pakistan and realize the gravity exercising her right, it would save Pakistan from drought conditions. The crops and agriculture would then be least affected because of ample availability of water. As a corollary, India will then have prosperous neighbour with whom it can indulge in bilateral trade for the mutual advantage. Consequently, the region will rapidly progress economically. Thus, it is evident that not exercising one’s right can be more rational than exercising it, at certain times. Therefore, the statement holds the ground that right to do a thing does not mean it is right to do that thing.

The examples above quite vividly illustrate that one must avoid exercising one’s right when the omens elucidate it would not bring right results. The soul of the right is buried hundreds of feet beneath the earth when that right is exercised in right direction. A right must always be exercised for right purpose, at right time, in the right direction. Rights deserve right treatment to bear the right results. It is far better to refrain from exercising a right than treating it wrongly. In a nutshell, right to do a thing does not mean it is right to that thing.(Standard of essay was so good that your conclusion was a lame excuse comparatively, if you have got good impression then dont conclude suddenly, give few good impacts and detailed in atleast the same length as that of introduction)

End