Good and Evil Are not Real The concept of good and evil is one of the most foundational apothegms ever known to humankind. It was a crucial stepping stone for other morals, and it is what averts society from pandemonium, by providing structures for laws. But, one may ask oneself; where did the conceptualization of good and evil arise? I believe that good and evil does not exist and are entirely artificial. Ludicrous is what one might be thinking after I’ve stated such a radical exposition, but I disagree and can justify my argument with factual evidence.
Furthermore, it will show that Hardin’s own solution is not a viable option either. It is not within the scope of this paper to offer a solution, but to show that our current leading moral theoretical approaches are inadequate to deal poverty and hunger on a global scale and that a new moral approach is needed.
War is something that, at this point in history, can be arguably deemed as part of the human condition. For whatever reason, it appears that humans are destined not to get along and that violent conflict is the preferred method of solving issues that arise. Whether it be fighting for the love of Helen of Troy or espousing the likes of God and Allah as a justification, war is one thing that time has yet to see the end of. That being said, it comes as no surprise that academics, scientists, and philosophers alike have taken to attempting to understand why wars happen. A controversial and somewhat debated topic is the concept of the Just War Principles.
Terrorism, like any complex issue, is notably difficult to make sense of and analyze; definitions that exclude certain especially confusing or grey areas with regards to terrorism, such as “state terror” thus have massive pros with regards to making discussion and analyzation simpler and easier (Gage 78). They make sure that certain actions that are widely agreed upon not to be terrorism do not fit the criteria to be categorized as such, thus preventing unnecessary confusion and distress. Exclusionary definitions thereby through simplification make terrorism as a concept more understandable and more accessible to people at large. However, simplification of any subject, let alone the definition of complex subject, comes with not only its own unique pro’s, but also its own unique
However, is human nature truly so selfish and hostile that human race are doomed to be uneducable in war prevention? Or there is indeed something problematic with the way we teach warfare, and those drawbacks hinder us from comprehensively understanding the nature of war and thereof shackle us from effectively reducing the chance of conflict? By an evaluation of Alexevich’s War’s Unwomanly Face, a book, which chronicles the real struggles and contribution of women warriors, I find it more plausible to say today’s war education is indeed problematic and ineffective, and it is possible to improve it in two ways: first, by giving a more comprehensive teaching of war, and second, by altering the unitary and over-rational way of teaching war into a more multifold and empathetic one. First of all, although it sound as a cliche, one way to improve the war education is to give a thorough teaching with respect to warfare. It may be hard to believe but it is safe to say our war
Since pictures are extremely culturally coloured, these may in fact be the most arduous forms of media to translate. This is an area of translation where the translator has really no standard to fall back on and s/he need to decide how to solve the situation himself/herself. The question arises, again, whether adding some sort of notes to the picture ruins or enhances the experience of the viewer, and the opinions seem to be divided on that matter. If the picture would be completely alien to the target readers, however, some sort of added description by the translator is extremely helpful. Graphic novels are even more challenging in this respect because the entire plot of the novel mainly depends on the pictures.
More importantly If a society suffers from human rights violations, peace will never really be achieved. Violations of human rights are the basic ground which led to conflict. Those violations include unlawful killings, torture, forced displacement, starvation, attacking civilians and commit war crimes are terrible abuses of human rights. The sustained denial of human rights causes repressed/oppressed groups to react and may prompt intervention, increasing the conflict. Human rights abuses cause and escalate
Introduction Humanitarian intervention is a hard topic to discuss considering the fact that the global community is constructed on the ideas or principles of sovereignty, non-intervention, and the non-use of force. After a mass loss of human lives in the Second and First World War, the society of states has launched laws that prohibit genocides, dismissal of the ill-treatment of the civilian people and establishing basic human rights. There is a conflict between the ideology of sovereignty and non-intervention. State sovereignty is something very important because, as the meaning of the term “sovereignty”, states are supported to be the guardian angels of their citizens’ security. Although this does not happen as expected, instead of some states
But recently, with the changing nature of conflicts and the surge of intra-state confrontations, the functions of peacekeeping operations have become much more complex and comprehensive, encompassing conflict prevention, peacemaking, post conflict peace-building and assistance to the activities of international tribunals in bringing war criminals to justice. “Peacekeeping” is a term that imparts virtually no information about what type of operation is taking place. An average person cannot readily imagine what the term peacekeeping connotes. Commonly, the term implies an operation short of armed conflict. However, in the real sense it does not necessarily mean that the operation excludes armed conflict, as many peacekeepers have discovered.
“When diplomacy ends, War begins.” ― Adolf Hitler. I strongly disagree with the point that competition for scarce natural resources such as fish is the most important factor that leads to international conflict. Other factors that I believe equally contributes to international conflict includes competing claims over territory and lack of resources. I believe religious beliefs is the most important reason that leads to international conflict because of the impact it has. One factor that lead to international conflicts was competing claims over territories.