Issue169 同主题，限时失败，写了n个小时

AlexInAWUID: 2349849

TOPIC: ISSUE169 - "Those who treat politics and morality as though they were separate realms fail to understand either the one or the other."
WORDS: 559          TIME: 限时失败         DATE: 2007-7-31 20:46:??

It has been valued hundreds of years ago, when in an old Chinese tale a king lost his war, simply because of sympathy to his enemy. The notion of separation of politics and morality had been emphasized by the eastern world ever since, and in the west, ever since Machiavelli’s book "Prince". Nevertheless, the relationship between politics and morality is not as simple as it seems, because the ultimate goal of politics lies in morality, and the latter can well affect the outcome of politics.

Some might argue though, that because of the existence of evil opponents, to follow moral standards in political decision making is like to disarm voluntarily before the sword of the enemy. True, that in the time of war, cheating your opponent is necessary. But more generally speaking, to undertake strategies out of boundaries of morality is like opening the refrigerator to be cooled in summer, and igniting the hatch of the house to be warmed in winter. Going out of moral boundaries is hazardous, for it benefits a small group of individuals while sacrificing the others; and it brings in profits in the short run, while consuming more in long.

On the one hand, the welfare of the whole nation as the ultimate goal of politics, would not tolerate malicious politicians, who act on behalf of a group of people in sacrifice of others. After all, in the era of democracy, which emphasizes the well-being of every individual, any strategy harming the interest of the people as a whole, is unacceptable in the perspective of democracy. For example, while sacrificing some small countries, the signature Prime Mister Chamberlain made on the Munich Pact, brought to Britain merely an unexpected war. What if Chamberlain had stuck his policy to the basic moral standard of not betraying friends, and organizes a strong union against Fascism from the very beginning? The resignation of the Prime Minister, indicating the verdict of British people, reflected that political actions aiming at satisfying the need of the whole nation, should never seek aberration of moral standards.

While following the moral standards is for democratic goals, the politicians have another reason to do so: to avoid being myopic. A choice of policy will be considered against morality for one and only reason: the politician's seeking short-run benefits. For example, by deceptions to the people or their allies, they gain benefits from what others lose, but will lose it soon enough in this sophisticated world with few naive people, who are willing to watch their belongings taken and gone. Consider the case in the Nazi Germany, where Hitler's deception only brought in the revenge of former allies like the Soviet Union, and the rebellion of the local people. In general, a mischievous politician will sooner or later, suffer the revenge of whoever he harmed, making what goal he aimed into something further out of his reach.

In the final analysis, although the idea of separation of politics and morality is thought rational, in fact it is not. Political strategies carried out without the restraint of morality, might deviate from the ultimate goal of politics on the one hand, and on the other, be myopic as well. As so many historical evidences are indicating, that either have politicians too "rational" been abandoned by the people, or have their nations be abandoned by the history.

Tuexy.qiuUID: 2350973

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　修改
论点：虽然政治家不能以道德操守为目标，但政治行为和道德是密切相关的。
1. 政治行为的最终目的是全体人民的利益，遵守道德帮助会达到这个目的，避免为少数人损害多数人的利益。
2. 因为其他人不是傻的，所以不遵守道德准则，容易使政治家追求更大的短期利益，而损失长远利益。（就是说不要道德了）

It has been valued hundreds of years ago, when in an old Chinese tale a king lost his war, simply because of sympathy to his enemy. （至少不清楚是什么WAR，说清楚。这一句表达有问题。）The notion of separation of politics and morality had been emphasized by the eastern world ever since, and in the west, ever since　（啊！） Machiavelli’s book "Prince". Nevertheless, the relationship between politics and morality is not as simple as it seems, because the ultimate goal of politics lies in morality, and the latter can well affect the outcome of politics.　
不简单是因为道德是政治的最终目的，还有later会影响政治？这表达是不是不好？

Some might argue though, that because of the existence of evil opponents, （because of,所以就to follow like..这个原因应该是那些坏人们不会思考什么道德吧，就是说你没有说得太清楚。）to follow moral standards in political decision making is like to disarm voluntarily before the sword of the enemy. True, that in the time of war, cheating your opponent is necessary. But more generally speaking, to undertake strategies out of boundaries of morality is like opening the refrigerator to be cooled in summer, and igniting the hatch of the house to be warmed in winter. （比喻哈，不过说实话我不大觉得这个比喻怎么好，因为“不管道德处理原则好像在热天开空调吗？”）Going out of moral boundaries is hazardous, for it benefits a small group of individuals while sacrificing the others; and it brings in profits in the short run, while consuming more in long.（句子想把它变得很活泼的。这个我改不了，我的作文也被大侠改得那样。我是说别的句子，这句没有问题。）

On the one hand, the welfare of the whole nation as the ultimate goal of politics, would not tolerate malicious politicians, who act on behalf of a group of people （but/while act）in sacrifice of others. After all, in the era of democracy, which emphasizes the well-being of every individual, any strategy harming the interest of the people as a whole, is unacceptable in the perspective of democracy. For example, while sacrificing some small countries, the signature Prime Mister Chamberlain made on the Munich Pact, brought to Britain merely an unexpected war. What if Chamberlain had stuck his policy to the basic moral standard of not betraying friends, and organizes a strong union against Fascism from the very beginning? The resignation of the Prime Minister, indicating the verdict of British people, reflected that political actions aiming at satisfying the need of the whole nation, should never seek aberration of moral standards.（一个after all, 一个例子，这个分析还行啊。不过，是不没有和morality联系起来啊？）

While following the moral standards is for democratic goals, the politicians have another reason to do so（又没有说清楚吧，什么 so?）: to avoid being myopic（这个哈哈，myopic是不行的，它只是近视啊。用shortsight试试）. A choice of policy will be considered against morality for one and only reason（这句子有问题。少个谓语。）: the politician's seeking short-run benefits. For example, by deceptions （有这么用的吗？）to the people or their allies, they gain benefits from what others lose, but will lose it soon enough in this sophisticated world with few naive people, who are willing to watch their belongings taken and gone. （他们从别人的失去中得到了，但是很快就会失去，在这个理智的国度，没有几个人能够幼稚到让别人拿走自己的财富。这句子，真是有点没有营养啊。我还开始没看出来什么意思。）Consider the case in the Nazi Germany, where Hitler's deception only brought in the revenge of former allies like the Soviet Union, and the rebellion of the local people. （老H受到报复，这个revenge不能用吧。我画线的，和where不和。）In general, a mischievous politician will sooner or later, suffer the revenge of whoever he harmed, making what goal he aimed into something further out of his reach.

In the final analysis, although the idea of separation of politics and morality is thought rational, in fact it is not. （啊？不能啊，though rational, in fact is not?）Political strategies carried out without the restraint of morality, might deviate from the ultimate goal of politics on the one hand, and on the other, be myopic as well. As so many historical evidences are indicating, that either have politicians too "rational" been abandoned by the people, or have their nations be abandoned by the history.

IN　SUM，我觉得还是思路不清晰啊，语言也不少错，真的，只是我不能给你改，我自己写的，当时也认为够好，但是请老外看了之后，我吓坏了，每一句都错了。。所以不是打击你。
小问题都要注意，句子想把它变得很活泼的，但是先要不少的训练。
你词汇没有问题，不知查过字典没有，我以前查，后来坚决不用，但是，词用得不是很熟练啊。不准确啊。
就这些，不知你什么时候考试啊，有问题可以找时间和我讨论。