原田英語の英検二次面接 ぜんぶ攻略くん
AI採点

英検1級 二次 予想トピック 46 ・ 🏛️ 政治・行政・法 ・ To what extent

To what extent should governments limit personal freedom to protect public safety?

公共の安全を守るために、政府は個人の自由をどの程度制限すべきか。

このトピックを選ぶべき人

コロナ禍の行動制限や防犯の話題を、自由と安全のバランスで語れる人向け。

骨組み理由3つ（どちらの立場でも話せる）

賛成（Yes）で話すなら

I believe governments should be able to limit personal freedom to a considerable extent when public safety is seriously at risk.

  1. emergenciesIn a real emergency, such as a pandemic or a major disaster, quick and firm action can save many lives. During the COVID-19 pandemic, limits on large gatherings helped slow the spread of the virus.
  2. harm to othersFreedom does not include the right to harm other people. Laws against drunk driving, for example, limit personal choice, but almost everyone accepts them because they protect others.
  3. feeling safePeople can only enjoy their freedom if they feel safe. Clear safety rules in crowded places, such as limits on the number of people at large events, help everyone enjoy them without fear.

反対（No）で話すなら

I believe governments should limit personal freedom only to a very limited extent.

  1. abuse of powerPowers given to a government in an emergency can be misused or kept long after the crisis has passed. History shows that some governments have used security as an excuse to silence their critics.
  2. slippery slopeOnce people accept small limits on freedom, it becomes easier to introduce larger ones. Surveillance introduced to fight crime, for example, could later be used to monitor ordinary citizens.
  3. personal responsibilityMost people can make sensible decisions when they are given accurate information. In Japan, many people wore masks and avoided crowds during the pandemic, even without strict legal orders.

想定質疑面接委員はこう突っ込んでくる

QDuring a pandemic, wouldn't strict lockdowns save more lives?

That may be true in the very early stages. Admittedly, strong measures can slow the spread quickly. However, long lockdowns also cause serious harm, such as job losses and mental health problems. So I believe restrictions should be short, clearly explained, and regularly reviewed.

Q：パンデミックのときは、厳しいロックダウンの方が多くの命を救えるのでは？
A：ごく初期の段階ではそうかもしれません。確かに、強い対策は感染の広がりを素早く抑えられます。しかし、長いロックダウンは失業や心の健康の問題など、深刻な害ももたらします。ですから、制限は短期間にとどめ、理由をはっきり説明し、定期的に見直すべきだと考えます。

QHow can we stop governments from abusing emergency powers?

I think there should be strict time limits on any emergency measures. Parliament should have to approve any extension, and the courts should be able to review the measures. A free press is also important, because it can expose misuse.

Q：政府が緊急時の権限を乱用するのをどう防げますか。
A：緊急時の措置には厳しい期限を設けるべきだと思います。延長には国会の承認を必要とし、裁判所が措置を審査できるようにすべきです。乱用を明るみに出せる自由な報道も大切です。

QDo you think Japan's approach during the pandemic was successful?

Overall, I think it worked reasonably well, although it was not perfect. Japan relied mainly on requests rather than legal orders, and most people cooperated. This shows that trust and clear communication can sometimes be as effective as strict rules.

Q：パンデミックのときの日本のやり方はうまくいったと思いますか。
A：完璧ではありませんでしたが、全体としてはそれなりにうまくいったと思います。日本は法的な命令よりも主に「要請」に頼り、ほとんどの人が協力しました。信頼と分かりやすい説明が、厳しいルールと同じくらい効果を持つこともあると示しています。

語彙このトピックで使える表現