The Place of Factor X in Friedman and Albright’s Conflict

Three scholars namely Thomas L. Friedman, Madeleine Albright and Francis Fukuyama cast offered related thoughts which policy- feignrs could film to use in difference of opinion resolution. To all of them, respecting tender-hearted dignity is plainly the key to divergence resolution. Also, they all try to explain moral options as the type of choice that must surface in the society to nominate a harmonious society. However, they score presented different sources for which people reflect on in making moral judgments like identity, rationality and freedom. The articles they save create verbally which areThe dingle Theory of Conflict Resolution, creed and Diplomacy and The Post pitying future day, respectively have tackled translucent issues but they derive their arguments from merciful record. The first article for example discusses about the impacts of economic globalization on state and theme collaboration the second deals with how expertise and consideration of rel igion could facilitate in the understanding of cultural and religious differences to arrive at peace and settlements indeed preventing wars the third concerns itself with dissecting human disposition to prove that technological and scientific culture should be regulated to sustain the innate characteristics of domain and maintain their aspirations for unity. I would like to emphasize however that using the third article, Posthuman Future by Francis Fukuyama, the two articles are similar in that they refer to some aspects of human nature that Fukuyama referred to in his study as part of Factor X. nonwithstanding at the same time, I would like to present a in-person analysis that Friedman and Albright in their discussions of economic-political behaviour and religious beliefs, are able to come before although implicitly an separate aspect of human nature that Fukuyama efficiency have not fully underscored- the human interactions that produce, mould, shape and influence belief s, look, ideologies that yields to mobilization, organization, even conflict and its resolution. Let me begin by sharing what Fukuyama has to say about human dignity.How is moral choice determined? Francis Fukuyama in his new book the Posthuman Future tries to give a fresh perspective on the nature of human being and human value that eventually leads to a discussion of a variant of moral choice that is rooted in human dignity. Fukuyama says that human values are rooted in human nature which in playing period is rooted in our genes.Fukuyama defines human nature as the trade union of the behavior and characteristics that are typical of the human species, arising from genetic rather than environmental factors. populace as complex wholes with a range of capacities like rationality, moral choice, sociability, sentience, consciousness, language, and so on that exceed those located among non-human animals is what gives humans moral worth. So fleck non-humans may receive nature as well, only humans possess dignity. Dignity is what gives humans the followingsuperior moral status that raises us all above the rest of animal creation and yet makes us equals of one another qua human beings.Fukuyama believes that dignity resides in what he refers d make the stairs as Factor Xa mysterious Factor X which is the inhering human quality that remains after all of a persons contingent and inadvertent characteristics have been stripped away.Fukuyama claims thatFactor X croupnot be reduced to the self-command of moral choice, or primer, or language, or sociability, or sentience, or emotions, or consciousness, or any other quality that has been put forth as a grounds for human dignity. It is all of these qualities coming together in a human whole that make up Factor XIt is Factor X that Fukuyama wants to conserve from the command of biotechnologists.In this given equation, ergonomics which consists of the alteration of our biological nature would in any case alter hu man nature, trans approach patterning human values and undermine capitalism. He further notes thatWhat is lastly at impale with biotechnology is the very grounding of the human moral sense. We therefore inquire international regulation to obstruct any technological advance that might disrupt either the unity or the continuity of human nature, and thereby the human rights that are based upon it. (Fukuyama, 2002)Francis Fukuyama seemingly concerned with the natural stray of things fears that with artificial actions like those presented in medicines, cloning and genetic engineering, what could have been naturally designed as the end in our society would change as we intervened in the natural course of events. This assumption leads him to some policy prescriptions as regards the limitations of these developments.One can deduce from his assumptions that our morality and our moral choices will also be affected with these perceived changes. The resolution for Fukuyama in all of humans worries that provoke biotechnology is seen in his statement, There are good prudential reasons to defer to the natural order of things and not to think that human beings can easily improve upon it through casual interventionHaving read the Dell Theory of Conflict Resolution, one can judge at the low that the intention was to rationalize the behavior of people and organizations which due to globalization and in the consideration of their best interests have resorted to collaboration, thus making their human nature progress into economically defined configurations and abstain from war and other skirmishes. Richard Cobden verbaliseFree trade is Gods diplomacy. There is no other certain way of uniting people in the bonds of peace (cited in the Dell Theory of Conflict Resolution).If I were to put it simply, Id say Friedman as he appears a liberal to me wishes to promote for the saki of resolving conflict among groups and states, humans embedded rationality as the aspect that makes us unique and thinking life-forms. He is saying that economically speaking, we would rather choose the best possible choice- that one that will necessitate the least costs and risks and the greater benefits. The least harm would be to preserve the freedom of choice and inherent rights of humans -characteristic of a capitalist musical arrangement and even prospered in free trade.Now, this has become not only a rational choice for him, but also a moral choice and dignity derives itself from the consideration of other peoples rights to personal property, probability to engage in the globalizing system as free and rational beings and perceptiveness of what others could do to help others at the same time helping their own selves (comparative advantage). In this case, conflict arises when disrespect against other humans in the form of illegal transactions, abuse of power, unfair decisions and agreements take place. Hence, as far as foreign policy is concern, time has come for policy-mak ers to lose interest in hard security issues like war but focus on meaningful and friendly trade treaties and the like.On the other hand, the article Faith and Diplomacy by Madeleine Albright takes faith in religion as the nucleotide of humans moral choices. Looking at humans capacity and nature to reason and feel- this must be provoked to make people make better assessment of their actions and decisions. It is the domination of a normal identity as humans created in the likeness of God that could fashion an intensive dislike to killing other humans and hurting them.The ultimate reason to abhor war and fighting must come from the nature of humans to feel sympathy, pain, sadness from the makings of their religious differences. Hence, international diplomatic traffic faced with religious-based insurgencies must take this tactic to eliminate the perspective of dehumanisation in wars as an opportunity to maintain order. Human dignity in this case is taken away when one treats anothe r human non-human. He says in the articleWhen participants in a conflict claim to be people of faith, a negotiator who has the credentials and the credibility to do so might wish to call their bluffHumans have the nature to realize mistakes after some moments of reflection based on reason and sentiments.However as Fukuyama states, Factor X is the totality of human natures, the sum of all parts. Although a lot of other scholars still contest and renounce Fukuyamas exaggeration of the impacts of biotechnology on the human qualities, I may not delve into those criticisms although one thing is clear to me that all of these scholars have faith in what humans can do both banish and positive. Conflict is caused by human qualities and characteristics as rational, free beings capable of intro and complex organizing. What must be given emphasis however much than human nature is human interaction.Their social nature is what brings them to form distinct religious groups and organizations, i nfluence each other to develop new traditions, norms and structures, uphold and not to cooperate depending on mainstream beliefs and ideologies. I would say Friedman and Albrights thoughts on moral choice, human dignity and conflict resolution are not isolated from the human aspects that Fukuyama is talking about, although in a separate discussion, they have perhaps unintentionally promoted another way of looking at conflict which transcends the explanations made by Fukuyama..