Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Implicated
There are numerous implications if my topic remains unresolved in the future. If the United States does not act in ways to lessen human suffering, types of aid will keep being ineffective, and most importantly, millions of people will continue to suffer. If current global policies continue to be implemented, most certainly another genocidal situation like Darfur will occur, and nothing will be done to stop it. The U.S. must take charge as the global super power to promote the rest of the world to follow it in the fight for human rights and freedom. I do not only mean that the U.S. should create new plans to start this, but also it should use its powerful influence in a positive manner to change current global organizations so that they are more effective. With this said, there will always be violence in the world, and even if in the future the U.S. resolves the faults in global policies, situations will continue to arise where suffering occurs. With this said, more effective steps taken by the U.S. would help prevent these situations from getting as out of hand as the Darfur genocide, and could lessen the amount of human suffering in poverty-stricken nations and countries where totalitarian groups are taking people's rights away.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The United States should lead by example, by being good and moral. Although it is difficult to define morality because each individual has a different definition of morality, and (not necessarily) they want everyone to follow their definition. In order for other countries to believe in and follow our definition of morality, we must win the hearts and minds of the people. The United States must show them the logic and the morality of its position, and in the end the other nations will be our supporters/followers longer than if we had made them do as we say by force.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2000/11/20/MN26343.DTL&hw=vietnam+war&sn=067&sc=455
This link describes how former President Clinton won hearts and minds in Vietnam (after the war).
The world will never be completely free of violence because no human being is perfect. We all have two sides, good and evil, and who we are depends on the side we choose to act upon. However, if we all act upon the generally accepted definition of good (because like morality everyone has a different definition), then we as a people could seriously lessen the amount of human suffering that exists in this world.
I think that the optimism you have for the world is an important thing for all of us to remember. Your theory definitely promotes the golden rule that we should treat our neighbors as we would treat ourselves. With this said, I entirely wish that your theory would work. Sadly, this philosophy will not stop situations like Darfur from happening. How will your theory cause the U.S. to stop the government of Sudan from killing over 300,000 people? With this said, the world could be a better place if the U.S. used its power to promote good. This should be the goal that is strived for but it does not answer the question of what the U.S. should do to stop situations where leaders do not care for this philosophy and only care for themselves.
ReplyDelete99.99999% of people are genuinely good. Its the .00001% that are bad that cause 100% of our problems. If you think about it, how can a situation like genocide occur? One evil person dictates, and 10000 follow mindlessly. Maybe if people stopped letting others make decisions for them we could maintain a decent society free of atrocities such as seen in Darfur. Unfortunately too many people today rest on the axiom that man is inherently flawed and needs someone to tell him what to do.
ReplyDelete