issue169 byTuexy

Tuexy.qiuUID: 2350973

TOPIC: ISSUE169 - "Those who treat politics and morality as though they were separate realms fail to understand either the one or the other."
WORDS: 495          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2007-8-2 20:36:13
修改了一下，作文长了点哈。

Morality, broadly defined as the rules guarding public social behavior, reflects a certain social concept of values, has little, if does, clear or particular standards existed. Nevertheless, a merchant, star, educator or other public character who is inclined to help, aid, auspice the others is often respected as moral one. But how can you think a moral politician?  Does morality can work well in political domain?

History witnessed not just once that politicians lost in over-morality. With retrospection to thousands of years before, Peloponnesian War, which last nearly for 30years, bursted between Athens and Sparta. Athens politicians were unwilling at seeing a war appeared, and just want peace, then just waiting Sparta's armies kill them and led to the end of Athens in history. There is similar example in modern times. Javier, once the Czech President, holding a political idea of "saying truth", was finally quit the political screen. These two very instances above may be the real illustrative of that morality and politic may be separate, and that morality in politics often leads to failure in politics application.

According to Machiavelli’s famous politic work The Prince, politicians as politicians are those executors who gain and maintain political power indifferent to morality. In fact, politicians tackle those tasks among different nations, different public parts, as to meet the benefit of those accordingly group, lies and condemnation or other immoral manners must adopt. We all know that in politic, "there are no true friends but just true profits.". Politicians should just consider the true needs and desire of a nation rather the public morality require. And for a politician, to be a moral person in making decision, will often encounter failures. Chamberlain, the Primer Administer in the Second World War, signed the Munich Pact with Hitler from German, and Mussolini from Italy. He even was confident after the sign, saying that "it will increase the peace in Europe" to Englishmen. His kindness and moral behavior to Nazi government was eventually proved wrong after not long after the Munich Pact Hitler open the war. And he was forced to declare war on German. As a politician Chamberlain should be absolutely aware of the mania ambition of Hitler and Mussolini, his failure in making strategy just came from that he was too compassionate to the inevitably villainy in politic.

In despite the occurrence existed, we shouldn't be veiled by the fact that politic and morality has a common feature is the pursuit of the best and most human well-being. No matter the politicians lie, toughly take war with armies or never sign so-called "peace agreements" with those warmongers, they should invariably stand on the perspective of ensuring public benefits and stimulating the social advance. Therefore, those immoral behaviors took by politicians may factually the morality of defined groups. To be acknowledged of this idea may best make us to regard the importance of a balance taking in the politic regions and morality.

And I keenly agree that as the appear of globalization, the public will become growing tight, and our ideas and principles in different societies will become more and more similar, so the assimilation in politic and morality would appear, naturally leading the decrease of immoral behaviors occurred in politic areas.

wenxi417UID: 2344317

Morality, broadly defined as the rules guarding public social behavior, reflects a certain social concept of values, has(with) little, if does, clear or particular standards existed. Nevertheless, a merchant, star, educator or other public character who is inclined to help, aid, auspice the others is often respected as moral one. But how can you think a moral politician?  Does morality can work well in political domain?

History witnessed not just once that politicians lost in over-morality. With retrospection to thousands of years before, Peloponnesian War, which last nearly for 30years, bursted between Athens and Sparta. Athens politicians were unwilling at seeing a war appeared(to see a war happen), and just want peace, then just waiting Sparta's armies kill them and led to the end of Athens in history. There is similar example(s) in modern times(,too). Javier, once the Czech President, holding a political idea of "saying truth", (was) finally quit the political screen. These two very instances above may be the real illustrative of that morality and politic may be separate, and that morality in politics often leads to failure in politics application.

According to Machiavelli’s famous politic work The Prince, politicians as politicians are those executors who gain and maintain political power indifferent to morality. In fact, politicians tackle those tasks among different nations, different public parts, as to meet the benefit of those accordingly group, lies and condemnation or other immoral manners must adopt. We all know that in politic, "there are no true friends but just true profits.". Politicians should just consider the true needs and desire of a nation rather the public morality require. And for a politician, to be a moral person in making decision, will often encounter failures. Chamberlain, the Primer Administer in the Second World War, signed the Munich Pact with Hitler from German, and Mussolini from Italy. He even was confident after the sign, saying that "it will increase the peace in Europe" to Englishmen. His kindness and moral behavior to Nazi government was eventually proved wrong after not long after the Munich Pact Hitler open the war. And he was forced to declare war on German. As a politician Chamberlain should be absolutely aware of the mania ambition of Hitler and Mussolini, his failure in making strategy just came from that he was too compassionate to the inevitably villainy in politic.

In despite the occurrence (existed), we shouldn't be veiled by the fact that politic and morality has a common feature is the pursuit of the best and most human well-being. No matter the politicians lie, toughly take war with armies or never sign so-called "peace agreements" with those warmongers, they should invariably stand on the perspective of ensuring public benefits and stimulating the social advance. Therefore, those immoral behaviors took(taken) by politicians may factually(actually?) the morality of defined groups. To be acknowledged of this idea(To acknowledge this idea, maybe it is the best to make) may best make us to regard the importance of a balance taking in the politic regions and morality.

And I keenly agree that as the appear of globalization, the public will become growing tight(tightly), and our ideas and principles in different societies will become more and more similar, so the assimilation in politic and morality would appear, naturally leading the decrease of immoral behaviors occurred in politic areas.

这篇文章没看太懂，觉得文字和句子读得不太顺。稍嫌罗嗦。最后一段似乎没有与中心相联系。用词较高级。
以上为个人见解，改得不好，仅供参考。