Wednesday, May 22, 2013
The Bad
After we finish covering Yasser Arafat (1994 winner) and Henry Kissinger (1973 winner), explain if they are deserving winners. Arafat was a terrorist, ordering the murder of innocents. Kissinger ordered the bombing of Cambodia, which directly impacts the genocide that occurred there. However Arafat began a peace process with Israel that while not complete may lead to peace and stability in that volatile region. Kissinger helped to negotiate the Paris Peace Accords ending the Vietnam War. We are all complex beings; sometimes we do good things, and other times we fail. Do the good things they accomplished outweigh their less-than-noble past? Please respond by Thursday, May 23.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I do not believe that a human being can be completely bad or completely. I think we all make bad decisions and good decisions. Some peoples bad decisions outweigh the good, and some peoples good decisions outweigh the bad. People should be punished for the bad decisions that they make because that is how you learn. Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger both did horrible things, and they both accomplished some good in the world. If I were one of the people they saved I would consider them heros, and if I were one of that was victimized by them I would consider them as a terrorist. Since I am unbiased, I considered them to being human beings who make good and poor decisions.
ReplyDeleteGilisa Paternina
I believe that a person cant be in between good or bad. I also believe that a person cant be either bad or good. I know that im contradicting myself but let me elaborate on that. for example if someone killed someone and then saved 2 people then he would still be considered bad. Bad always outweights good. If u are good your whole life and you make 1 very bad desicion people will judge you on that bad desicion. theoretically maybe you arent a bad person but society will see you as a murder. It all depends on the situation. for kissinger and arafat they definately dont deserve the noble peace prize. They are bad people but still have some good. Sorry Dr. Yip but im going on the fence. If you are bad then turn good you are still bad but not AS bad. Some times we make bad desicions but we can cover it up with good desicions. That doesnt mean its not there. Like i said it all depends on the situation.
ReplyDeleteHamzah abdi
I personally believe that the good you do in life can outweigh the bad. When I die I want to be remembered for the good things I did in life as opposed to the poor choices I have made throughout my life. I don't believe there are many people who say they are the same person that they were 15 years ago. And I'm sure this is the case with Yasser Arafat. He at one point was the leader of a terrorist organization and was responsible for many deaths. However later on he began attempting to make peace with Israel. He was awarded the Noble Peace Prize for this and he was more than worthy of this award. John F. Kennedy once said “Those
ReplyDeletewho look only to the past or present
are certain to miss the future” and this couldn't be more true than with Yasser Arafat. Henry Kissinger however is not worthy of the Noble Peace Prize that he was awarded. Kissinger isn't worthy because he ordered the bombing of Cambodia. This decision could have been outweighed if he did good acts to make up for it. He was awarded the Noble Peace Prize due to his part in negotiating the Paris Peace Accords which claims to have ended the Vietnam war. However the Vietnam war didn't end for another 2 years. So not only did his direct order aid in the Cambodian genocide but he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for allegedly ending a war that he really didn't. So in my opinion Henry Kissinger is not deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize that he won. So in conclusion, people certainly can change and fix the wrongs they had done in the past. However, the "good" they do must have an actual impact.
-Ryan Brehio
I think that in some cases the good outweighs the bad and that a person can redeem themselves for prior actions. However the good can never outweigh the bad unless the person is held accountable for their bad actions first. The two winners of the noble peace prize, were never held accountable for their crimes and therefore should not have been given this award because they never had to face punishment for their bad actions but were rewarded a prize worth over a million dollars. Also the symbolism of the award is associated with people who are good to the bones, people who have blown up places and started wars without ever thinking twice about the lives they ruined should not even be considered for this award. So despite the good have done if they have yet to be held accountable for their bad actions they do not deserve to be considered a "good person" let alone be given the noble peace prize.
ReplyDelete-Sarah Kennedy
I think that It depends. If you are a terrorist who targets innocent people you are an evil human being. Whether or not you helped create peace it does not wash away the fact that you took away innocent lives to make a statement. Of course if you do wrong in your life, seek forgiveness and change your ways for good you are not a terrible being. But if this man continued to order attacks of innocent people then he is a murderous coward not worthy of any nobel peace prize.
ReplyDelete-Ben Guyette
With Henry Kissinger, the 1973 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and Yasser Arafat, the 1994 winner of the Peace Prize, I personally believe that the good things that they have accomplished does not outweigh their less-than-noble pasts. It is clear that Yasser Arafat is far from the peacemaker that nominating committee believed that he would be when he promised to work with Israel to end the conflict with Palestine, for his promise was not kept. Many people view Arafat as a terrorist who is responsible for hundreds of deaths and bombings of innocent people.
ReplyDeleteThe 1973 Nobel Peace prize went to the North Vietnamese leader Le Duc Tho and the US’s Secretary of state, Henry Kissinger. The men won this award for the Paris Peace Accords which was intended to withdraw American troops from Vietnam and to stop the war. Tho declined the prize, saying that there was no actual peace in Vietnam. Kissinger helped lead a bombing campaign against the North Vietnamese Army in Cambodia, which then directly impacted the Cambodian Genocide, leading to the death of two million people. It is said that Kissinger’s award may be most controversial, in fact, two Norwegian Nobel Committee members resigned in protest of Kissinger’s recognition as a worldwide peacemaker.
I believe that that the Nobel Peace Prize should be given to those individuals who spend their lives working for the common good instead of these politicians who signed these unfulfilled promises/ ‘peace treaties’ for their own selfish motivations. It is presented to an individual who makes the world a better and more peaceful place. This one action does not outweigh all of the atrocious things that have occurred to the world due to Kissinger and Arafat
Sometimes the good things that we do outweigh the bad things... but sometimes the bad things that we do can outweigh the good. So what exactly is the weight system? I believe that there is a certain point where one simply cannot be forgiven. Every individual and every situation is different; therefor the measurement of the good prevailing over the bad is unique. It is impossible to create some kind of formula to measure this.
- Jillian
Jillian makes a great point when she asks, "So what exactly is the weight system?" What evils are worse than others? What act of kindness can negate an act of malice and vice versa? It is difficult to tell when a person can redeem the evil that they have caused with the humanity that they have cultivated. In fact, it’s quite unlikely that we will ever create a system that can adequately determine how the acts of a person have cancelled each other out. However, I respectfully disagree with Jillian when she states, “I believe that there is a certain point where one simply cannot be forgiven.” Instead, I believe that no matter how seemingly evil a person is, there is no point in which they cannot redeem themselves.
DeleteArafat was responsible for the deaths of countless of innocent lives. However, he completely turned his life around and worked towards a peaceful resolution to the conflict with Israel. In doing so, he may prevent the lives of countless people in the future. The important thing to keep in mind here is that he is doing this to truly be good, not just to clear his name. If someone kills five people but saves two million lives without sincerely trying to be a good person, is that better than a man killing 50 people but sincerely changing his ways and saving only one life? It is the sincerity that I believe counts towards judging a person. Donating $100,000,000 because you had to is not as good as working day in and day out at a charity to better the world because you want to.
Kissinger did not deserve the award for drafting a peace treaty that did not even take effect when he won the prize. Furthermore, how much of Kissinger’s want for peace in Vietnam actually genuine and not because he was collecting a check from the government at the end of every week? What Arafat did in the Middle East was honest, hard work towards peace. Arafat did it not because he would gain wealth from the peace (although he might and would), but because his work would better the lives of so many people. Then again, I am just speculating that Arafat was sincere.
The good things that they have accomplished does outweigh the less-then-noble past in the case of these two men in the eyes of Noble Peace Prize chair-heads and I agree with the way that they handle this. A man can change and if he creates a program for great peace that has a huge impact on the human society than he should be acknowledged for his change in character. Actions speak larger than words so they can prove that they have changed for the better. Of course we should never forget the evils that a man has done in his past, but we should almost encourage positive behavior, or at least simply acknowledge the acts of peace that deserves to be celebrated.
ReplyDelete-Ian Borzain
The good things will never outweigh the bad things. If a man has killed three men, then starts a charity organization for cancer. I believe that man should still be remembered for the three murders he committed, regardless of the great charity organization that man created.
ReplyDelete-Connor Lanoie
People can do enough good in their lives to outweigh the bad that they have done, especially if they are alot older and much different than they were. It should still be aknowledged that the person has done bad in their life, but that they currently are a good person. There is a possibility for redemption, however its is not very common. Nick D
ReplyDeleteDepending on the circumstances the good can outweigh the bad. In the case of Yasser Arafat I believe that he cannot make up for what he did. Blatantly killing civilians to try to make a point and keeping money that is meant for the rest of the palestinians for yourself outweighs the peace negotiations and possible creation of palestine. In the case of Henry Kissinger I believe the good does outweigh the bad. If he didn't help end the Vietnam War then thousands more would have died.
ReplyDelete-Colin Krohto
I don’t believe that these two should have won the Noble Peace Prize. How can a prize be given to a person who has been killing people? Yes they helped too but the prize doesn’t have to be given every year and for them to give it to terrorists and a person that bombed innocent people to me makes no sense, and takes away from the honor of winning the Noble Peace Prize. I believe that people can change but that does not change what they did, they should get pleasure from helping people instead of hurting them and they should change so they can be a better person. To get this honor I believe a person should truly respect human life and these two don’t.
ReplyDeletePamela Whatley
How can one ignore all of the tragedies caused by a person simply because they attempted to accomplish something good for a change? It is abundantly clear that Arafat and Kissinger were merely trying to cover their asses when they half heartedly tried to make peace in places where they were responsible for so much death and destruction. Not only did Yasser Arafat coordinate the murder of thousands of people, but he escaped any blame simply because he shook hands with a man that he wasn’t very friendly with from Israel. Arafat then went on to enjoy his 1.3 billion dollars worth of blood money. The same goes for Henry Kissinger who lit the fuse of the bomb that was the Cambodian Genocide. Not only did Kissinger’s bomb strike annihilate innocent civilians including children, but his so called peace agreement to end the Vietnam War was made 2 years too early and therefore didn’t count for much of anything, especially peace. Thus, these two men who are the epitome of sneaky and conniving deserve not only to be stripped of their prizes, but to be forever regarded as “those guys who killed people and won an award for it.”
ReplyDelete---Nick Palumbo
Sometimes in life, the good things that someone does can outweigh the bad things that they have done. I do believe that people have both good and bad inside them and that nobody is perfect. When it comes to Yasser Arafat, I believe that what he did is absolutely evil and cannot be compensated for just by starting a peace process. He killed many people and ordered bombings so his level of evil cannot be made up for. When it comes to Henry Kissinger, what he did can be made up. What he did to help our country was very important and was definitely for the better. In some cases, evil can be made up for while other times it simply cannot be.
ReplyDeleteA persons character is created by their actions over the course of their life. Not half of their life. Just because these people started to cover their butts at the end of their life, that cannot wipe out their pasts. I mean come on one of these guys was a terrorist, now hes gonna get a peace award? How does that make any sense. I simply dont believe that you can all of a sudden turn your life around so that people can forget your past.
ReplyDeleteTommy Janicki
Many people throughout their lives make some bad decisions and can be reformed and turn their life around and do things for good. However when someone is seen as a terrorist in their life time I don't think they can possibly be considered for a peace prize. I don't believe that Yasser Arafat was deserving of winning the prize. While he did some horrible things in his life time he also did start to turn his life around with the peace process he began with Israel, which I believe should have been recognized but not to the point of him winning the prize.
ReplyDelete-wyatt
Personally I believe that the two events should be viewed separately. Arafat deserved the prize because he was peaceful that year. Just because he went on to organize a killing at he Olympics doesn't mean that he didn't deserve it that year. They should repeal his prize either. However, Arafat should be held accountable for his decisions regarding the killings. They both got their prize for their work that they did, not for who they are. Of course the bad out weighs the good but according to the Nobel peace prize they do deserve it.
ReplyDelete-Zack Shepherd