In his poem, Gibran makes the claim: “You are good in countless ways, and you are not evil when you are not good” (Gibran 22). The stanzas “You are good when you are one with yourself. Yet when you are not one with yourself you are not evil” (Gibran, 6-7), “You are good when you strive to give of yourself. Yet you are not evil when you seek gain for yourself” (Gibran 10-11), and “You are good when you walk to your goal firmly and with bold steps. Yet you are not evil when you go thither limping” (Gibran 18-19) validate his claim with the repetition of “Yet you are not evil…” indicating his belief that the absence of good is not the defining factor of evil.
ROLE OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENTS IN PROMOTING SOCIAL HARMONY SREE ABHINAV MARUDHALAM (D50) “Peace is not absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means.” – Ronald Reagan The above quote in a sense sets the tone of this essay. Conflict in any society, much less a society as ‘fuzzy’ as ours, is natural and unavoidable. In fact, conflict in a society is a sign of its open mindedness and serves as a catalyst to overall development. It also helps achieve a common ground in society, balance and creativity. Some of our post-independence innovations like the quasi federal polity are a result of various hues of what were essentially conflict.
Kim Jong-Il had 24 millions of people loving him and willing to die for him. But again, why were they feeling like this? To them the rest of the world is useless, they don’t need it. They have been taught since birth to obey and love their dictator. What he says it’s what they believe.
Chaos/Complexity Theory and Deterrence Deterrence was once successful during the cold war as there were calls in preventing a major war. However, when history is reviewed, deterrence has not worked so well. The bipolar simplicity of Cold war, strong command and control systems, and the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation showed the extreme cases of deterrence. Deterrence proved just to work well during the Cold war as opposed to after it. Its ineffective nature could be because of getting involved in conflict that we could actually avoid.
People living in Scandinavia and in other civilised countries around the world believe they are living in “safe” countries, and do not expect war and terror to take place there. Even though these countries do classify as being safer they have also suffered lately, as seen in terrorist attacks on Britain, Sweden and France. The people living in these countries have not experienced or gone through war and terror themselves to value peace enough. For that reason, the current generation does not display any unease regarding terror or atrocities, but people a little older have a drastically different mindset regarding how much they value peace. For instance, when talking with an elderly person, a topic which usually emerges concerns either the army or war and how it affected their lives forever.
If violence will impeded the man in fulfilling his purpose, then violence is contrary to natural law. Since peace assists this fulfillment, man should honour promises, since to dishonour a promise can lead to disharmony or even violence. This should be the constant value that is embodied within the principle of natural law. It is a characteristic of natural law that the truths it embodies are not made known to man by some Great Architect beyond the skies. We do not find the heavens open and a hand comes through clouds, passing down to mankind a tablet of stone on which the truths of natural law are inscribed: the truth of natural law are not revealed truths.
Here, Martin Luther King Jr. is inferring that violence is not necessary to convey a message or fight for what one believes, and that attaining justice isn 't limited to the act of violence. King does not believe in using violence to fight violence and uses ethos to appeal to the audience: "Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly" (King 65). This is similar to the saying that two wrongs don 't make a right. King is acknowledging that being violent to respond to violence is only going to cause more chaos which in terms is not right; he is thinking about consequence. Malcolm X 's speech is fueled with anger and rage.
Living in a country that does not wage any war does not necessarily mean that people live in peace. Johan Galtung claims that peace is not just a question of war prevention and disarmament, but it also has to do with the living conditions of the population, such as infrastructure and measures that lead to more social justice. He distinguishes negative peace from positive peace: negative peace is a condition where, even though no war and no visible
Furthermore, the judgement given was well understood and AG Maduro chose to discard the usage of the term ‘selling arrangements’ which in Keck, caused a degree of confusion. This action is worth praising but it could also insist that the Court refused to tackle the issue head on. However, a notable merit of this judgement is how the Court paired it within well known concepts of market-access and direct or indirect discrimination while at the same time being consistent with Keck. These concepts are well-understood and it gives an opportunity for the Court to apply the law with a greater degree of clarity and ease. With that being said, Vassilopoulos is a case that is worth applauding for such reason, especially at a time where there was massive uncertainty surrounding the rule of law regarding MEQRs.
That kind of role played by the civil society in favour of the state has had many advantages; first: little or no possibility of the occurrence of the violent clashes or war between the state and citizen thus posing no threat to the lives and wealth of the inhabitants, second: a peaceful life for all as individuals are consciously appeased with the state though that appeasement may be bogus and delusive and third: proper maintenance of law and order in