珀斯Essay代写:不兼容系统

2017-04-24 00:17

国家已经全部不兼容系统与通用的道德。通过提供作为一个例子，是一个涉及这两superpowers说那些在反对政权是缺乏任何道德价值观。即使在共产主义对资本主义的水平的反映，对国家忠诚的公民的边界，一切安静的思想belonged集团他们没有感觉到，美国公民在思想道德使命的一分。在这些国家的电力系统，特别是一个湖泊，你自己有任何比其他被删除从电力负荷功能的状态。本machiavellian summarizes皮特曼酒店”概念，有自己的公共生活规则，基督教伦理是一个gratuitous障碍”（1979～.the皮特曼）自中新世是一个强大的国家利益的东西，同样的叶子许多公民思想道德的体现。军事安全和经济优势，学院属于一个强大的民族国家是明确的和有小的激励对那些看起来不平等公民为强大的美国。这关。道德的作用在一个免税的优势有效地分享他人的邀请会不会使计算量。许多小的地方，它是公民的问题如果处理的工作人员，他们是最重要的事情是，在一个国家的道德标准和生活，可以attained。这是一个很短的皮特曼社区学院的世界，“我们没有觉得到人类忠诚的保证，或任何系统基于普通人类道德的道德prevail想反抗的状态。
珀斯Essay代写:不兼容系统
The nation-state system has been wholly incompatible with the universal morality. The Cold War serves as an example of this with the two Superpowers involved suggesting that those in the opposing regime were lacking in any moral values. Even at the wider level of communism against capitalism that overrode national boundaries, the loyalty of citizens was still to the ideological group that they belonged to – there was no feeling of moral duty to citizens across the ideological divide. Those in power within the nation-state system, in particular, have often seen themselves as removed from having any duty other than to maintain the power of the state. Pittman summarizes this with the Machiavellian concept that “public life has its own rules to which Christian ethics is a gratuitous obstacle” (p23 Pittman 1979).The self-interest of the powerful nations states is something that leaves many citizens with little thought of a wider morality. The military, security and economic advantages of belonging to a powerful nation state are clear and there is little incentive to look to treat as equals those citizens in less powerful states that are worse off. Acting on a moral duty to share advantages with others would effectively be an invitation to make oneself worse off. For many, it matters little if citizens elsewhere are treated as well as they are – the most important thing is that within one’s own state, reasonable standards of morals and living can be attained. Pittman concludes that short of a war of the worlds, “we have no warrant for thinking that loyalty to mankind, or to any system of morality based on common humanity will prevail against the morality of the state.