- UID
- 349308
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2008-6-14
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
题目：If a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it are justifiable.
Consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true.【这种题是不是应该就是反复削弱假设来修正论点？】
I can hardly reconcile with the statement that any means taken to attain the goal are justifiable when the goal is worthy. It should be at the first place to consider the basic principle of human civilization before making a decision.
The interest of the goal could only benefit a part of people, or it would not need any debate. Policy only serves the interest of policymakers, especially when the goal is made by a dictator or a multi-national firm. Altruism only happened when the policymakers need public supports to selling products or requesting a candidacy. Apparently, such a goal would be not worthy enough to take any unjustified means, for the sake of private interest. For instance, Nazi Germany threatened the entire world by her patriotic zealots. And they did take any means to attain their goals, including invading war, racial decimation. Their aims might be worthy to themselves but became the nightmare of other people. Those tragedies would have not happened, if some conscience among Germans awaked from the national fanatic passion and those dominators found the errors of their aims and methods.
However, some scholars agreed with such behaviors with the full respect and trust of the policymakers and governors. There is a rumor spreading around the history scholars for decades that the government allowed Japanese Army attacked Pearl Harbor to arouse civilians' fury and encourage them to become the brave soldiers. If it was true, no one can deny the crucial crime of President Roosevelt and his West Wing. They sacrificed United States' Navy defenselessly to force the people into world war. However, it is the great support from the United States that helped the rest of world to defeat Nazi eventually, which might have been delayed for the isolationism. Roosevelt, as one of the most famous and successful president, was widely accomplished of that decision in academic circle. It was considered to be a political achievement that abandoning the isolationism since George Washington‘s time, even it is at the cost of an arguable method. But everyone escaped from the catastrophe of Adolf Hitler should be great for Roosevelt's will to end Nazi hurricane with any means.
As the operators and followers of policy, civilians should not rely on the intelligence and goodwill of leader, but their own judgment. According our faith and education, the means should not violate basic human ethics or law. Unlike goal, which is easily misguided by demonstration and media, ethics and law are the result of long-term common sense and compromise. And these criterions should not give up unless there is some ultimately important reason. As I claimed before, policymakers always serve the interests of themselves and their funding supporters. It is pure aristocracy to meet few peoples' interests by taking the means might sacrifice plebeians.
I still oppose the statement that to take any available means to achieve the goal is necessary and justified. Such tendency would be extremely dangerous to the entire world and human civilization, especially when the public are misguided by ascendant ideology and dictatorial government.
感觉很久没写了，搭配和同义词的变换这些细节都不行了，然后issue的方法也把握的不好，请大家给点建议，谢了 |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-3-23 10:38:36
收藏
收藏
楼主
