ines what is good. It is the particular right of the masters to create values. (Nietzsche, pp.100) If Bill Clinton creates the moral values for the United States of America, as a consequence we, as American citizens, can see nothing that he does as bad.If I were given the exact same circumstances, I would not follow the same course of action as President Clinton. I tend to believe that the peaceful action is better than the hostile action in all situations, no matter what the circumstances. Subsequently if a potentially hostile rival offered me peace, I would gladly accept it. The reasons given for not accepting the peace offer are because the Iraqi letter is neither unequivocal nor unconditional and because Iraq did not give a clear statement that they will fully comply with U.N. weapons inspections. (Susanne M. Schafer; Plain Dealer, pp.3-A) These reasons are unacceptable because they are unrealistic. We do not live in an idealistic world; as a consequence almost nothing is unconditional. In addition, although Iraq did not make a clear statement of compliance, they did not make a clear statement of noncompliance either. Because both of the reasons offered for not accepting Iraqs offer of peace are flawed, the only option that can be concluded is to accept Iraqs offer of peace.There is no way to definitively know which is the good action because there could be more than one good action to perform in any given situation. For example, if I were in a time of war and two of my comrades were afflicted with equal wounds that were potentially fatal and I could only save one, the two good actions that can be done are either save one friend or save the other. Regardless which one I saved I would be making the right decision. Either way I would be saving the life of a friend, which by Kants definition is the right action because it is done from a good will and the good will meets the three conditions for being called good will. Fir...
