[i习作temp] 已解决 [复制链接]

morgan918
UID：2320343

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 5
寄托币: 678
注册时间: 2007-3-27
精华: 0
帖子: 9

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-7-31 21:25:52 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 morgan918 于 2011-4-19 01:49 编辑

thanks

回应
0

使用道具举报

lucialucky
UID：2347401

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 74
注册时间: 2007-6-8
精华: 0
帖子: 14

沙发

发表于 2007-7-31 22:03:25 |只看该作者

不错了
bless 加油

使用道具举报

norns
UID：2325187

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 15
寄托币: 2061
注册时间: 2007-4-8
精华: 1
帖子: 12

板凳

发表于 2007-8-1 00:29:45 |只看该作者

ISSUE169 - "Those who treat politics and morality as though they were separate realms fail to understand either the one or the other."

Are politics and morality mutually exclusive? (问题可以多几个)The speaker gives the positive answer on this question. I strongly agree with the speaker that separation of politics and morality leads to failure of understanding either the one or the other. After all, politicians require certain moral standard to take an advantage in political games.

To begin with, it is ultimately the morality determine politicians success in the long run. （给论据前最好有句和TS的衔接）Consider the case of President Abraham Lincoln who advocates liberation of black slaves. This anti-discrimination （这个例子要引申到moral来）action is beyond his own interest but in the whole society's interest, which exactly fulfill the requirement of morality-that is, take action in the interest of public instead of own selfish aim. Finally, liberation of black slaves gains huge popularity for him and thus contributes a lot to the success of his political life（例子太花笔墨，2句够了，分析太少，要引到morality and p上）.

（这里其实可以分段，我以为；一正一反，层次更清晰）By contrast, ignoring morality, politicians will doom to fail in political games. Consider Hitler's political career. Although he once was the leader of a nation with considerate territory and power, he was defeated and then commits suicide ending both his life and political career. His failure was due to notoriously ruthlessness and immoral behavior in WWII which eventually result of losing support from public. These two examples demonstrate a simple idea that since morality generally focus on the benefit of the populace public, political actions taken with morality will always win popularity from public. And the popularity thus will do help to win a political game.

In addition, An common argument holds by people disagree with this statement is that when doing politics, morality sometime will be harmful and we should exclude morality from politics for the reason that we cannot always expect our political rivals to be moral. I concede that politicians should make some compromise when dealing with political competitions. For example we cannot be 100 percent forthrightness to our competitor when in a voting game. Nor should we refuse to pander a generous political donation in return of a little public interest, which is necessary to maintain position in election. After all, being completely forthright without any compromise seems to be naive and vulnerable to political opponents. Politics are not idealism but pragmatism, therefore in order to gain and preserve political leadership some degree of compromise is necessary. （让步段太多，detractor的观点和例子摆到位就可，太耗笔墨了）

However, are these “Compromise” made by politician immoral behavior as the arguer suggest? I do not think so. From my point of view, they fail to recognize the differences between morality of private life and morality of politics. （为什么到现在才给出来？那你前面在干什么，都不用分清政治道德和私人道德么？）Unlike the definition of morality to a person, which states that a person should be completely honest and putting others needs ahead of one's own, border definition of morality should be considered when it comes to politics. As stated before, the rule of politics rendered complete personal morality so ineffective in politics that a little compromise is quite understandable. Nothing is immoral when politicians are simply obeying the rule of politics.Perhaps we should abandon our narrow definition of morality when talking about politics. For example, a politician in an election who claims his opponent "bad for economy" or "out of touch with public needs" is not necessarily immoral as long as the statement is base on truth at least to some extend. Politician’s remark is nothing immoral but simply eschews rigorous facts while appealing to emotions or subjective interpretations. Hence what I said about "compromise" does not necessarily mean immoral behavior. Based on this bordered definition of morality, the argument of the disagreement seems to be quite questionable.

In sum, I fundamentally agree with the speaker's assertion. It recognizes the determination effect of morality in politics. Moreover, the statement which disagree with the speaker are lacking of support when we scrutinize the assumption base on their argument.

你应该把让步段摆前面，那样你的思路还是有一条明线牵引着的，不散，这很好

使用道具举报