ISSUE169 (道德与政治可否分开考虑）

阿秀UID: 137492

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

正文

The reporter asserts that only if people should treat politics and morality as a unity, they can really understand the two fields. I totally support this viewpoint, that politics and morality are tight related and have frequent mutual influence.

First, politics, composed of all kinds of rules, policy, and laws, serves as an external force to establish and maintain the healthy social conditions. And the morality are the rules regulating the behaviors of human beings by intrinsic way, that is, the behaviors violating these rules will induce the blame from the heart of the wrongdoer and the others in the society. In other words, politics and morality serve to the same goal in some sense. A society often uses the two methods simultaneously. We should go no further than opening a book of laws. No society will allow thieving, cheating, and mistreating others, and at the same time, nearly all moralities forbid these too. On the other hand, because of the difference of morality, some behaviors considered illegal in a country become legal in the other. For example, in most countries, a man marriage with two women at the same time is illegal, however, in some Islamic countries, it is totally justification, since the society allows a man having 4 wives at the same time.

In addition, the politics and the morality are mutually influent forces. On the one hand, the conditions of the politics can deeply influence the conditions of the morality in a society. Obviously, in a country, whose politics are only used to maintain the interests of few people in high position, the morality must be damaged in this society. Because, when those people owing power violate those without, no force can prevent the interests of the victims. Power renders the bad men a password to neglect morality. We can also imagine, if a country has clear and equal politics, where anyone breaking laws and politics can be suitably punished, all people would control their behaviors by self-control way so that the social morality would be improved.

On the other hand, the conditions of the morality also influence the conditions of the politics. Because, who prescribe, apply, and be regulated by the politics are all people within the society. A group of men without high moral level cannot effectively and equitably legislate and apply all laws, policies, and rules. In addition, politics function depending on the external force, so if only the person is without the fear of the politics or with enough wise to avoid the detection, he /she can also keep breaking all politic rules for his/her own interests. All these factors will eventually destruct the politics.

All in all, since the politics and morality have similar goal, and are a couple mutual influent forces, the conditions of one can deeply influence the other, apparently, the idea to treat them separately are unwise.

devotionUID: 168104

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

正文

The reporter asserts that only if people should treat politics and morality as a unity, they can really understand the two fields. I totally support this viewpoint, that politics and morality are tight（tightly） related and have frequent mutual influence.(我感觉 用 interplay 好些)

First, politics, composed of all kinds of rules, policy, and laws, serves as an external force to establish and maintain the healthy social conditions. (In contrast) And the morality are the rules regulating the behaviors of human beings by(in an ) intrinsic way, that (which) is, the behaviors violating these rules will induce the blame from the heart of the wrongdoer and the others in the society. In other words, politics and morality serve to the same goal in some sense. A society often uses the two methods simultaneously. We should go no further than opening a book of laws(不好意思，这句话没看懂). No society will allow thieving（theft）, cheating, and mistreating others, and at the same time, nearly all moralities forbid these too. On the other hand, because of the difference of morality, some behaviors considered illegal in a country become legal in the other. For example, in most countries, a man marriage with two women at the same time is illegal, however, in some Islamic countries, it is totally justification(justifiable), since the society allows a man having 4(真是4个吗？这点我第一次听到) wives at the same time.
（你这一段说政治和道德的关系，我感觉政治和道德的目的都是让人民遵守社会规则，保障社会安全和秩序。 政治（法律）往往具有强制性，而道德只有监督作用）
In addition, the politics and the morality are mutually influent forces. On the one hand, the conditions of the politics can deeply influence the conditions of the morality in a society. Obviously, in a country, whose politics are only used to maintain the interests of few people in high position, the morality must be damaged in this society. Because, when those people owing（in） power violate those without(plebeian,今天写作文时刚背会的单词 hoho), no force can prevent the interests of the victims. Power renders the bad men a password to neglect morality. We can also imagine, if a country has clear and equal politics, where anyone breaking laws and politics can be suitably punished, all people would control their behaviors by self-control way so that the social morality would be improved.
On the other hand, the conditions of the morality also influence the conditions of the politics. Because, who prescribe, apply, and be regulated by the politics are all people within the society. A group of men without high moral level cannot effectively and equitably legislate and apply all laws, policies, and rules. In addition, politics function depending on the external force, so if only the person is without the fear of the politics or with enough wise to avoid the detection, he /she can also keep breaking all politic rules for his/her own interests. All these factors will eventually destruct the politics.
（这两段你论证两者相互作用，不过我看的晕晕的，我感觉你选折了从这个角度论述很有勇气，因为这些都是那些满腹经纶的学者们才能说清的问题）

All in all, since the politics and morality have similar goal, and are a couple mutual influent forces, the conditions of one can deeply influence the other, apparently, the idea to treat them separately are unwise.
（这个题很难写的，你的文章的结构比较清晰，不过你选择了一个很艰难的角度去论证，想过从反面去论证吗？
B1，如果只讲道德没有法律，社会就会无人治理，一片chaos.
B2 如果只讲政治不讲道德，这社会充满了贪污贪婪和自私）
B3 应结合两者，以法治国，以德服人
我感觉这样写会容易些，而且例子也比较好举，你说呢？
我感觉你学习很认真的，每天写好多文章，进步也很快
我再过10天就要考了，现在紧张死了，真希望将来能抽个好题
共同努力！！！！

devotionUID: 168104

不好意思
用了太多的"我感觉"
ets 又要说我用词重复,结构单一了

阿秀UID: 137492

haha， 谢谢。你比我还早考呀，我16，现在限时还是会头脑停顿，如果真限成了一般都长不了。努力是不得已啊。。。。。 哭

我就是觉得这题写得似乎有理，其实很绕。。。。 你说的没错。不知道如何才能深入。

我也想过你的提纲，可是觉得有点偏，因为题目只是说不能把他们分开了解，不是说如何治理社会才好。也就是说社会可以是他们共同作用的，并且不能把这两种力量分开来了解。不知道该怎么引好。

CDFUID: 143938

正文

The reporter asserts that only if people should treat politics and morality as a unity, they can really understand the two fields. I totally support this viewpoint, that politics and morality are tight related and have frequent mutual influence. [B]我觉得这一句改成 that politics and morality are synergestic---either mutual benefitial or detrimantal. 是不是好一点 :)[/B]
First, politics, composed of all kinds of rules, policy, and laws, serves as an external force to establish and maintain the healthy social conditions. [B](a healthy society :)) [/B]   And the morality are the rules regulating the behaviors of human beings by intrinsic way, that is, the behaviors violating these rules will induce the blame from the heart of the wrongdoer and the others in the society. In other words, politics and morality serve to the same goal in some sense. A society often uses the two methods simultaneously. We should go no further than opening a book of laws. No society will allow thieving, cheating, and mistreating others, and at the same time, nearly all moralities forbid these too. On the other hand, because of the difference of morality, some behaviors considered illegal in a country become legal in the other. For example, in most countries, a man marriage with two women at the same time is illegal, however, in some Islamic countries, it is totally justification, since the society allows a man having 4 wives at the same time.

In addition, the politics and the morality are mutually influent forces. On the one hand, the conditions of the politics can deeply influence the conditions of the morality in a society. Obviously, in a country, whose politics are only used to  maintain [B](merely meet) [/B]  the interests of few people in high position, the morality must be damaged in this society. Because, when those people owing power violate those without, no force can prevent the interests of the victims. [B](这句话好像不是很通顺，without后面感觉缺了什么)[/B] Power renders the bad men a password to neglect morality. We can also imagine, if a country has clear and equal politics, where anyone breaking laws and politics can be suitably punished, all people would control their behaviors by self-control way so that the social morality would be improved.

On the other hand, the conditions of the morality also influence the conditions of the politics. Because, who prescribe, apply, and be regulated by the politics are all people within the society. A group of men without high moral level cannot effectively and equitably legislate and apply all laws, policies, and rules. In addition, politics function depending on the external force, so if only the person is without the fear of the politics or with enough wise to avoid the detection, he /she can also keep breaking all politic rules for his/her own interests. All these factors will eventually destruct the politics.

All in all, since the politics and morality have similar goal, and are a couple mutual influent forces, the conditions of one can deeply influence the other, apparently, the idea to treat them separately are unwise.


对于这个论题我比较困惑，到底politics是指的策略还是就单单指笼统的政治？我倾向于后者，应该是讨论政治与道德的关系，如果是这样，楼主好像稍稍有些偏题
如果是讨论政治与道德之间的关系，我是这样列提纲的：
1. 不能用完全道德的眼光看待政治，政治把戏只要有好的出发点并对社会没有太大的危害，甚至可以达到好的效果，那么就是可行的
2.巩固自己的政治地位需要采取折中的态度，以便正当的击败对手
3.一个成功的政治家绝对离不开道德，无道德的行为在短期内也许会有很多政治好处，但从长远来讲必将对自己和社会产生严重后果

不知这样行不行 ^_^

阿秀UID: 137492

谢谢修改，：）
我的看法 politics 也是指政治不过，看来我们对 政治 的理解不同，我认为是生活中到处都有的法律，政策，各种规章的的综合体，就是外在约束人的行为并规范社会的力量。看CDF 的提纲觉得好象更偏象政治家的手段。
可能我需要给出一个定义会好一些。 呵呵，我是这样写的文章自然更偏向自己的看法，认为从小学学到大学的那个政治应该更恰当一些。因为这样的政治才更是社会的一贯有机组成部分，而不是个人的权谋之术。不过ISSUE这个东西毕竟是他们出题，所以，我也只是一家之言啦。欢迎讨论。

DaffiUID: 18714

只看了第一句。楼主对题目的理解有点问题。



题目是 Those who treat politics and morality as through they were separate realms fail to understand either the one or the other. 其逻辑关系是：P（treat politics and morality separately 将政治与道德分开的人）--> Q（don't understand either the one or the other不懂这二者或之一），其逆反命题应该是：非Q-->非P，即：Those who understand both politics and morality throughly will treat them whole.（完全理解政治与道德的人，会将二者视为一个整体对待。/ 只有将政治与道德视为一个整体的人才是完全理解这二者关系的。）

楼主的第一句：only if people should treat politics and morality as a unity, they can really understand the two fields. 逻辑关系是：非P（将政治与道德视为一个整体的人）-->非Q（完全理解这二者）。

DaffiUID: 18714

另一个比较严重的问题：政治和法律不能混为一谈！

阿秀UID: 137492

Daffi 不好意思，我没能理解你指出的逻辑错误。。。。。。。
另外，法律是国家政治的一个组成部分。

beatGREUID: 171849

2.巩固自己的政治地位需要采取折中的态度，以便正当的击败对手

请教CDF，这个论点怎么把政治与道德联系起来讨论阿

DaffiUID: 18714

"法律是国家政治的一个组成部分。"极广义的政治当然包括法律。这样说当然也没错。：）

然而有些东西还是要分开的。政治的主角，是政党，是政客；而法律的主角，是国家。法律是国家对公民权利的保障，与任何政党没有太必然的联系。

有些概念的混淆，源于有意识的政治宣传。



所以"三个代表"才能那么轻易地入宪，而没有太强烈的反对的声音。因为大部分人也根本想不到有什么好反对的。

然而，宪法是国家对公民基本权利的保障，而你只是一个政党。即使你是执政党，即使现在中国只有一个执政党，这也不代表你能代表整个国家，不代表你能把自己的口号写入我最基本的权利书。你能不能代表社会先进生产力先进文化能不能代表广大人民的根本利益那是你自己的事情，你大可以把它写在自己的党纲上做你自己的口号自己的信仰，但你不能把它写入宪法。

你不能把它当作整个国家的口号整个国家的信仰。




说得远了。其实，就算你说法律是国家政治的一个组成部分，那也表示它们不完全等同。但你的文章中也没理清这一点。至于二楼的提纲，更是理所当然地把法律当政治了。

starayUID: 152771

M-W
a : the art or science of government  
b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy  
c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government

应该是比较广义的吧

maggie0810UID: 158543

这道题真得很bt的说~
我是这么考虑的
1。从定义上来讨论两者间关系
2。做事立场符合道德准则是评价政治家的基本标准
3。道德问题不是政治要考虑的全部，有时要牺牲一点点道德，当然不是牺牲道德的基本问题
把之前写得翻了出来，互相交流一下~
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=211829

DaffiUID: 18714

最初由 staray 发布
[B]M-W
a : the art or science of government  
b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy  
c : the art or science concerne..

以下省略...... [/B]

从哪里体现它"应该比较广义吧"？要进行对比的话，至少得把法律的定义也帖出来。

政治的主体，上面这个解释写得够清楚了，是government；法律的主体难道也是government？

阿秀UID: 137492

啊,好热闹.

呵呵， 我觉得还是理解不同，政治这个东西真的太笼统了，但Daffi的看法我不能完全同意,试想一下,所谓宪法可以限制各政党行为是源于这个国家的民主政治, 如果拿美国为例子的话，是这个国家已经建立的政治体制保证了它法律的特点，同时法律也作为一种力量维护这种体制.我还是觉得它们同为政治的组成部分,而且不能分割出来说。一旦变为君主制度,那么很好想象,法律是怎样随统治的需要变化.  而国家政策,外交,军事,无不是政治. 政策的指定者是政府,而政治就是多人游戏啦.法律的主体又该怎么说呢, 民主国家的政策实现了全体制衡,所以看起来似乎政府只能指定政策干预不了法律，可是日本是怎么修改宪法的，美国的宪法也不是不变的，中国3次修宪,政府作为政治的诸多力量中的一个也一样左右法律的变革.而且法律的出发点从来不是保障公民权利，是保障统制者利益, 看历代各国法律变化就明白了，指定的人是统治阶级,而违背统治阶级利益的从来就不可能被法律保护,当这个统治集团考虑大部分人的利益的时候法律服务才服务人民. 所以我觉得你这样讲太简单化这个问题了。

从我的立场出发，法律在第二部分指明是政治的一个方面，把他抽离出来做例子就是合理的了. 后来我看了一下,我好象也没完全说是法律,只是说有权的人得利, 政治腐败的时候利用政治关节里的种种权益捞私利,压迫别人也应该说得过去吧.