Tuesday 5 February 2019

Malvinas Secret Files in 2072

Malvinas Secret Files in 2072

What could be in the 2072 Secret Falklands File we hear so often about? If Britain did hide military secrets for 90 years, what do you think they could be?

Nogging Grogg, former Retd British Army Major & Business Systems Analyst (1973-2009)

There is one thought that has run through my mind off and on right from the time it was decided to send 5 Infantry Brigade to support 3 Commando Brigade.
It is well known that original orbat of 5 Bde consisted of 2 Para, 3 Para & 1/7 GR. By the time the decision was taken to send 5 Bde down south it had already lost two of it's three battalions to 3 Cdo 2 Para & 3 Para.
Therefore two additional Battalions were needed to bring the Brigade up to strength. That of course turned out to be the Scots Guards and Welsh Guards. Both of whom had been operating in their public ceremonial duties role in London. Much has been made about the fact that they were not really fit for the task that was assigned to them at such short notice.
It is my contention that while it may have been necessary to use one of the Guards Battalions to bring 5 Bde up to strength, that it was not necessary to use two of them. There was another Infantry Battalion stationed in UK at the time which I believe would have been a much better choice. That was The Prince of Wales Own Regiment of Yorkshire 1 PWO. Now I have no personal connection or interest in 1 PWO but I suggest they would have been an infinitely better choice to send to the Falklands than one of the Guards Battalions. The reason is simple 1 PWO were assigned to the ACE mobile force. This was a multinational NATO force designed to be used on the NATO flanks in either Northern Norway or Turkey. It's prime purpose was political it was to be the multinational "blood sacrifice" to demonstrate commitment by all NATO nations. Therefore when the Falklands situation "blew up" 1 PWO had just finished several weeks of exercises in Norway north of the arctic circle in winter. They were almost as well trained at winter warfare as the Royal Marines and probably better prepared than 2 or 3 Para. If they had been assigned to 5 Bde then the brigade would at least have hade 2 of it's three battalions fully operational.
Now I have heard excuses from various MoD types saying that 1 PWO could not be touched as it was committed to NATO. To that I call Bullshit. All during the troubles in Northern Ireland the British Army robbed units from it's divisions supposedly assigned to NATO in Germany, and yet found a way to keep the Politicians happy. British Army battalions were always getting Rerolled and Redeployed.
A Brit Infantry Bn might spend a few years in UK in the Light role during which time it might be Sent to do a UN peacekeeping Tour in Cyprus, then it would be rerolled as a mechanised battalion and sent to Germany for several years during which time it might be pulled out to do a couple counter insurgency Northern Ireland tours.
1 PWO could easily have been reassigned to 5 Bde it would be a simple stroke of the administrative pen. They would not need to be issued with any winter warfare equipment as they already had it. The northern European Winter was coming to an end so if one of the Guards battalions were given 1 PWOs ACE mobile role their lack of Arctic training would not be a problem. The next ACE mobile exercise would be in Turkey in autumn plenty of time for a battalion to get battle ready.
I have long suspected that the Household Division used it's political muscle to pull a few strings and get itself involved in the Falklands operation. When suddenly it looked like the British forces were going to get into their first proper war (instead of all this internal security nonsense) in a generation and the Guards did not want to miss out on a chance of a few battle honours. The trouble is there may not be anything on file about this as the whole discussion may have been over the phone or possibly over a Gin & Ton.


BSc Mathematics, University of Southampton

I was looking at this some years ago, having read some papers on the campaign by US military personnel, and concluded the Guards Btns were almost the worse possible candidates.
1.      Like the majority of units not in key roles, they were under strength - it was (and prob. still is) usual for units to be at c. 90% strength, relying on the call-up of reservists to fill the gaps.
2.    As both Btns had been in the public duties role for at least 3 years (2 Scots did have a recent tour of NI under their belt), what recent experience did they have of combined arms or Bde level ops?
3.    Fitness - when part of the Welsh Guards started their march, they had to abort as the loads were too heavy. To be fair, even the paras struggled (in part due to the inadequacies of the boots, something they had pointed out earlier in the year).

Yes well I have to be careful here. I have some personal issues with the Welsh Guards in 1982. I was involved with getting the QE2 ready to embark 5 Bde as well as the actual embarkation itself. Suffice to say if it had not been due the brilliant performance and discipline of 1/7 GR we would not have made up for time lost earlier in the day.

Thomas Daley Former Marine Engineer
Talk in the Merchant navy in 1982, is that the paras and marines were pounding the decks running nearly all hours of the day on the way down. They knew shit could happen andit did.
The choppers got wiped out on the Atlantic Conveyor so walking, tabbing, yomping were needed.
The guards moaned about food and weather, sea state prevented physical exercise were their excuse. 30 minutes into an attempt at a night march, it were called off.
Unfit or their bergens were overloaded, the paras, marines and gurkhas all had the same. Unfit, unprepared and unsuitable …..

Long held suspicions? I would say correctly…The Guards and their officers both senior and retired are in a unique position to influence the MOD as well as politicians…significantly less now as the Conservatives are not off the national service era…and have much less army in them…! So yes…not fit enough..not hard enough…but wangled it!

 Guy BlackwellRegistered Nurse ex soldier
I was serving in a regional infantry battalion at the time and it was widely thought that the desision to send the Guards was entirely made at the personal whim of the Guards hierarchy. The are, and were, a fine body of men and performed admirably, but not a logical choice.

And what a painful costly moment that was,even i with no military experience whatsoever would realise that two ships anchored in a bay full of soldiers opposing a capable determined enemy airforce was a disaster waiting to happen getting everyone of and the ships back out to sea no more than basic common sense.

Gwyn Kemp-Philp Former civil servant
Referring to the O/P - I have often thought that the rank of Major is the most senior officer still capable of being a soldier. Above that, it is swamped in politics and mired in customs, seniority and ear whispering, anything except considered operational planning to make best use of resources available.
The Falklands campaign is living testament to that but nevertheless, it proves that the rank and file can still prevail despite their senior officer’s pre-WWI attitudes.

Bill Crean, lived in Saudi Arabia (1990-2015)

I would not be surprised if there were such Falklands files , after all there are still some secret files from WW2, namely what did Rudolf Hess say during questioning, in his imprisonment in England? That secret has been maintained for 77 years so far.
As with the Hess story, the Royal family could be affected and my guess is the secret Falklands files, if they exist, contain something about Prince Andrew, who served as a helicopter pilot during the Falklands’ conflict. I am sure the news will be all good, but I am not sure why they would want to make it a secret for so long.
After a standard period of 30 years some Falklands war secrets were released in 2012. This was essentially the refueling system they employed to bomb the Argentines on the Falklands from Ascension Island, 3000 miles away. The Argentines were so alarmed at the bombing that they evacuated their fighters to mainland Argentina, which reduced their impact in fighting the British because the fighters had to fly from the mainland to engage the British, a distance of 400 miles.

Martin Porter, B.Sc from University of Leicester (1991)

I would expect the main military secrets that remain to be revealed relate to intelligence gathering, especially the extent to which the UK received intelligence from the USA.
A curiosity of the campaign is that no overall theatre commander was ever appointed. Admiral Woodward looked after the fleet, whilst Thompson, and then Moore looked after the land war. There was no overall air strategy, and the air wings of the two carriers used different tactics throughout the campaign. All the coordination was done by Northwood Headquarters, 8000 miles away in Hertfordshire. Why?

The best guess is that they were able to use classified intelligence sources that could not be shared with the commanders in theatre. Some of this intel was no doubt from GCHQ intercepts. Some may very well have been from SAS teams and MI6 officers on the ground in Argentina. However, some almost certainly came from the USA. What this was, we do not know. Most likely this was satellites and electronic intelligence, the exact capabilities of which they would not want revealed at the height of the Cold War, but there is also the possibility of human sources that would be very sensitive indeed.
It’s not just the USA that might have supplied intelligence too. Chile was certainly helping the UK, although what intel they had is unknown. Then there was the French connection. It’s possible, although less likely, that France’s technical personal shared some intelligence with the UK, and even possible they didn’t do this voluntarily.
That this is what is in those files is just a guess on my behalf, but this is the question about the war that I would most like answering.

Max Jones, Aspiring filmmaker, knows a lot about Naval/Military History

I don’t know very much about the specifics, but imagine they would be relatively standard classified documentation. I don’t imagine there will be a great deal of massive controversies or terrible war crimes on the British end being uncovered, a lot of it is probably just reports and specific details of various notable events. Others might regard political deals or communications that weren’t so public at the time.
I don’t know very much about these files or anything concerning them, so these are only my assumptions based on my pre-existing understanding of everything that happened but I expect a lot of it is information simply classified the same way that militaries today won’t release everything they know about weapons tests, sales and equipment based deals and other details of operations to the public. Perhaps some is simply a matter of evaluating the performance of systems without giving away information that offers them a natural advantage through combat testing, like the capabilities of radar systems, missiles, etc.
Otherwise, the UK Government will finally admit the HMS Invincible was sunk 5 times in the war and Hermes never even existed to begin with, and there is actually a hangar somewhere with piles of inflatable naval vessels in case any are lost.

Dave Hopkin , former Troop Commander at Brtish Army (1977-1984)

There are several potential themes of why information should be held secret
1.      Documents relating actual warning that the Government had recieved and ignored (potentially to do with Caringtons resignation) or information of what was really happening in the cabinet and number 10 - I suspect the cabinet were not all in favour of sending the Task Force
2.    Details of the enquires into the loss of the Sheffield which may compromise operational activities
3.    Details of the after action report on Goose Green that may be critical of the actions leading to the of Lt Col H Jones
4.    Details of Intelligence shared by allies that may harm their relationships with Argentina
5.     Details of operations in Tierra del Fuego.

Mick Bacon
, works at Semi-retirement (2014-present)

The reason that files are closed for 90 years, rather than the usual 30 years, is that they contain information about individuals. 90 years ensures that no living person has personal information disclosed.
Therefore , the secrets disclosed will be information about individuals.

Joseph Wang, studied at Ph.D Astronomy UT Austin, Physics MIT

In for military stuff, it would be the details on the sinking of the HMS Sheffield and the General Belgrano, and general “lessons learned” from the amphibious assault operations. There are so few examples of post-WWII real military actions that I’m sure that Chinese and Russian military people would love to learn as much as they can about how missiles and amphibious assaults work under real world situations.
As far as political and diplomatic stuff, there’s always something juicy in them. It’s the nature of politics and diplomacy that people will do and say things that are highly embarrassing so you have these rules so that people are safely in the grave when the historians argue about them.

Sunday 3 February 2019

2019 Speaking from an Ethic point of view

Everything simple is false. Everything complex is unusuable.
Paul Valéry



The following is Chapter 8 of my book Basics of Naval Health published in 2001 by  Dunken Printing House. I presume it keeps validity.

How should we live? Should we look for happiness or knowledge?
 If we seek happiness, will we find those things that make us 
really happy? If the law forces us to fight in a war that we do not
 support internally, should we disobey the law? Should we seek 
our benefit at the request of harming those around us?
 Can we make ostentation of opulence in a world so in need? 
Are there just and unjust wars? Can a civilian population be
 targeted for a nuclear attack? Can a Catholic woman commit 
suicide to avoid being raped? Is there a practical difference 
between killing and letting die? What are the limits of genetic
 engineering? What are our obligations towards the rest of the
 creatures of the planet and towards the generations that come
 behind us? Should human actions be judged exclusively
 according to their consequences (W.D.Ross)?
Is it always rational to act morally (Rawls)? Do we have an 
obligation to help others to preserve their rights (Robert Nozick)?
From all these questions and many more  arise a branch of
 philosophy called ethics whose knowledge helps make 
practical decisions in situations often critical.
The study of ethics covers not only the fundamental nature
 of human value but also those guidelines according to which 
human actions can be considered good or bad.
In 1977, Ronald Dworkin, author of a book on the rights of 
man (Taking Rights Seriously), postulated that respect for
 people was the fundamental principle of ethics.

Dr. W. Edwards Deming creator of the concept of Total Quality
, a term widely heard in our days, pointed to the importance of
 man feeling safe as a fundamental premise to face any type of 
activity with the greatest efficiency and that is also a Ethical 
component of work (Proceedings-June 115, p69)
The religious man may have perhaps a deeper and even more
 simplified vision when considering as William of Ockham that:
 "Everything that is good comes from God and that the will of
 God is not a matter of philosophy but of revelation and faith".
Or as the German philosopher and mathematician Gottfried
 Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) thought that the world is governed 
by a perfect God and therefore is the best of all possible worlds.
The origins of ethics
At present it is considered that ethics is born of two basic 
conceptions that are altruism and reciprocity.
The Theory of Evolution interpreted in a restricted way would 
seem to indicate that survival belongs to the strongest. Some 
people apply this misunderstood law of the jungle in their daily
The correct interpretation of the Theory of Evolution is not as
 ruthless as some want to make it seem to justify their actions.
 The best example of this is given to us by animals.
• The example of animals
The wolf is an example of altruism within the same species.
 When a wolf cannot participate in a hunt for any reason 
(he is injured, or takes care of the young, etc.) the rest of 
the herd brings him the meat he will need for his sustenance. 
They will protect the needy from other predators and cover 
each other. What would be the basis of this altruistic attitude
 animal? Wolves know that if they protect the needy and their
 offspring there will be more possibilities for the genetic
 characteristics of their species to spread.
The dolphins give us an example of altruism towards other
 species comparable to man. When a dolphin finds another
 wounded animal in the sea it pushes it with its body towards
 the surface so that it breathes and it helps it to arrive at the coast.

Every child arrives in the world with 50% of the genetic characters 
of his father and 50% of those of his mother. This leads us to have
 a supportive attitude towards our relatives (cousins, uncles, etc.)
 for a reason of blood. In a small community, everyone is in a 
certain way related and in the great societies values ​​are shared
 that induce us to help others.
Due to these elementary examples, human culture has developed 
a sense of loyalty and exalts within society those people who 
make sacrifices for the rest of the group and put the welfare of 
their peers before their own interests.
Reciprocal behavior has been observed in wolves, wild dogs, 
dolphins and monkeys. The monkeys usually remove the parasites
 from the back of each other but there is an implicit obligation 
of reciprocity between them. The monkey that does not observe
 this reciprocal behavior when his turn comes is excluded from
 the group or is attacked. Here in its most primitive form nature 
establishes the sense of what is just and what is reprehensible.
When Confucius was asked about a single word that would serve 
as a guide for a man's entire life, he replied, "Is not reciprocity 
such a word? What you do not like to be done to you, do not do
 to others. "

Conceptual errors widespread
It is said that "there is no universal ethic, because what is good 
for one culture can be frowned upon by another."
This is not true. In China the obligations of the children towards
 their parents may differ with those of the West, but the sense of
 altruism and the obligation of reciprocity towards those who raised
 us is a universal value.
It is said then that "all universal value is correct". This is not true 
either. In many countries slavery is still approved and yet this does
 not make it a less bad habit.
With this we come to an important conclusion and that is that we
 do not do good just because our society requires it or
 because it is a universal value or even a religious criterion.
Because of this, man has had to leave written to his descendants
 those patterns of behavior put to the test and with solid moral codes
 that will guarantee personal happiness in the midst of a united society.
The first written testimonies about ethics
The first texts of ethics were written in Egypt 3000 years BC. 
In these papyri passages are read with indications such as: 
"The bread must be shared with the hungry," "humble people
 without resources should be treated with kindness" and 
"should not laugh at the blind or the dwarves."
These principles, imbued with an ancestral wisdom without
 theoretical elucubrations, were directed to the people in 
general but fundamentally to the leading Egyptian class.
• Ethics and morals
From the beginning of the history of humanity, societies have
 developed moral codes linked to religious principles that have 
allowed us to establish which were the correct behaviors and 
which were the objectionable ones. These moral principles
are contained in ethics and are translated through rules of conduct.
Being the moral codes linked to religious principles and, when
 attributed a divine principle, they have been unobjectionable.
 In this way the men of the various churches have been the
 guardians and interpreters of them. The link between morality
 and religion is so intimate that it has been said that there can
 be no morality without religion. Plato was the first to postulate
 that what was right or wrong was independent of the gods. 
Certain gods demanded human sacrifices. Was this correct? 
Social life has demanded behavioral patterns from the beginning
 of time and, historical experience has shown, that transgression
 of these attacks the cohesion of every human group.
The ethics of the Navy Officer
In every Officer of the Navy there must be three values ​​that 
make the very essence of their profession, they are: honesty
, honor and integrity. We understand honestly the rejection
 of the lie, theft or fraud in any of its forms.
Having honor implies having a permanent concern to keep 
the demands imposed by our profession. Already in 1780 
the founder of the US Navy John Paul Jones said:
It is by no means enough that an officer of the navy should 
be a capable mariner. He must be that, of course, but also a
 great deal more. He should be as well a gentleman of liberal 
education, refined manners, punctilious courtesy, and the
 nicest sense of personal honor.... He should be the soul of tact
, patience, justice, firmness, and charity. 
Integrity is what defines the Navy Officer  and denotes
 trust and incorruptibility. It is the fundamental stone on
 which the other attributes revolve. When integrity fails, 
we can assure that the rest will fall soon. Integrity is not
 the best policy is the only policy.
This can be compared to a ship that is torpedoed. Its external
 integrity may be compromised by the damage to the hull 
but if internally its integrity is intact it will not sink. Because
 of this, it is so important to close the hatches when we are
 assaulted by the temptations that threaten to break our internal
How is integrity composed? Integrity is like a four-legged chair.
 Each of the legs is called honor, ethics, morals and profesional
 suitability. If one leg is missing, we fall in front of everyone.
At present we can see people who look with a certain irony on
 the conservation of these values. Or perhaps publicly propose
 them but do not apply them. A recent publication said: 
"Today many young people do not grow up in an environmen
t with ethics and honesty ... Many members of our society do 
not find this type of behavior normal, so that in many cases 
they are being indoctrinated in something that is alien to them
 "(Navy Times, April 11,1994-p3)
From this arises the fundamental question that has prevailed
 since the beginning: Why do we need to have integrity? The answer
 to this dilemma that every young person raises since he has use of
reason resides in the interior of every person. Integrity provides 
inner strength. 
A fictitious and unscrupulous personage of a well-known novelist
 expressed it like this: "Save us from the man who lives under his
 own codes, save us from the man with a clear conscience because 
he is the man who will defeat us" (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged-
New York; Penguin Books, USA Inc, 1957-p514)
Why do good when you get benefits doing the opposite? Plato said 
that in doing good things three elements entered into harmony:
 intellect, emotions and desires.
The unjust person lives with a permanent internal imbalance of
 these three factors. In this way, Plato linked doing good with 
personal happiness.
What are the rewards of integrity? In the naval service there
 are men and women who project their personal integrity both
 in their profession and in the totality of society. It often seems
 that they are not properly recognized and rewarded. The only 
sure reward these people have is that they can look at themselves 
calmly in the mirror every morning and know that they will be 
equally seen by their family and comrades in arms.
This behavior must be followed even when there is nobody to
 value it. According to a legend, Giges was a king who had a 
ring which made him invisible. The legend pointed to a 
philosophical question: if nobody could see it, did it make sense 
to continue behaving well? . Someone has said that integrity
 is the one thing in the darkness of your cabin.
How is the historical uselessness of the petty person shown?
The most illustrative answer is obtained through an ethics 
exercise that starts from a hypothetical situation. It is known
 as the prisoner's dilemma. They are two inmates accused of a
 crime. The inmates have no communication with each other.
Each prisoner is told the following: If one confesses and the 
other does not, the prisoner who confesses will be released 
immediately and the other will be sentenced to 20 years in 
prison. If none of them confess they will be retained for a couple
 of months and then released.
If both confess they will be sentenced to each one to 15 years
 in prison.
If the inmates act according to their own interest they will 
conclude that it is better to confess than not to confess no matter
 what the other inmate does.
It may sound paradoxical, but if the inmates seek their own interest
 without caring about the good of the other the result will be worse
 than if both act altruistically.
The Navy Officer must know that he must always act with truth
 and generosity because he belongs to an institution in which
human lives and not money depend on his integrity. 
Machiavellianism, the masterpiece of amoral cynicism, should no
t have a place in the Navy. The same could be said of indolence.
At this time, how to put into practice a code of honor at the
 level of the Navy? Several articles indicate that this code should 
be concise and energetic. "Everyone who lies, deceives, steals 
or defrauds the trust placed in him must be separated from 
the institution" (Proceedings-April 1994-p 43).
On the other hand, we must not only state what is punishable 
but what is expected in terms of behavior. Having printed a 
code of honor and a code of ethics are nowadays insufficient
 because they enunciate only the minimum conventional levels 
of behavior and therefore the daily circumstances overcome them.
A teacher used to say to his students: "Today I am going to take
 two exams: one of trigonometry and the other of honesty, I hope
 you will approve both but if you  must fail one that should be trigonometry
, there are many good men in the world who do not  trigonometry 
but there are no good men who won´t pass the 
honesty test. "
I remember that the motto of my school, embroidered on the
 shield of the blazer, said the words in Latin "Certa Bonum 
 Certamen"(Fight the good fight) and that several years passed 
before we as alumni realized the meaning of them.
Integrity is intertwined with the old naval traditions which have
 their reason for being. Therefore, a person lacking in principles 
will try to disqualify traditions in the first instance and look with
 scorn on every ethical principle. An ancient naval tradition 
established that it was not hierarchy or office that gave an office
 luster but the character of man and his performance in it. 
The institution remembers the man not his position 
(Proceedings-June 1993, p 50). Hence perhaps W. Churchill said
 "fortune is evil with those who break the traditions of the past."
What are the causes of integrity being violated?
The main faults are: a) The mistake of confusing what one is with
 the work entrusted to it, b) Losing the objective of the misión
 through the three great temptations that assault man: ambition
, greed and the ego, c) Loss of self-esteem due to the fear of
 confrontation and the habit of covering up one's own mistakes,
 d) Lack of professional aptitude and e) Moral blindness due to 
poor prior education or the absence of a code of personal behavior.
Greece was the cradle of different positions. One of the positions
 that originated a huge rejection was that of a Sophist named
 Trasimaco who thought that "Justice implies the obedience 
of the laws of society.These laws are drafted by the most influential
 political groups with a view to their interests. justice represent
s nothing but the interests of the strongest. " The Greeks repudiated
it because they immediately realized that it was against the 
freedom of the man of to objectively discriminate good from evil.
The Stoics who had their representative in Rome with Cicero 
gave a very important value to the use of reason. Marco Aurelio 
said that reason converted all men into citizens. The Epicureans
 on the other hand had an ethic based on pleasure and postulated 
something like "friendships were good as long as they brought us
 some good" Have we heard these concepts in our days?
Historically, the concept of the Greeks and Romans who admired 
personal independence, magnanimity and worldly success was 
destroyed by the introduction of Christian ethics. They are totally 
disparate conceptions and do not admit average terms and it is
 enough for us to read the Gospel of St. Luke (Lc 12, 49-53) 
Friedrich Nietsche (1844-1900) opposed that Christian ethic 
which he considered as a slavish morality being his best known 
aphorism "God is dead".
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was a Reformation-era thinker who
 had witnessed the horrors of the Civil War (1642-1651) in England. 
He tried by all means to develop a system of ethics based solely 
on human nature and the circumstances that touched him to
 live man. Hobbes considered that man always seeks his own 
pleasure and self-preservation (this concept was refuted by
 the 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury because it does not explain the 
altruistic inclination towards the public good). He considered
 that the only way to preserve peace was through a social
 contract and a sovereign with great moral authority and an
 enormous power to underpin and guarantee this contract.
 Without this guarantee there would be competition for wealth
, security and glory. 
There would be a war of "all against all" and the life of man 
would be "brutal, short, indecent, poor and lonely". These 
concepts and the terms used have been cited many times 
when referring to the implications of a nuclear conflict.
What simple advice can be given to the young naval Officer 
to help him preserve his integrity in the midst of the storms
 of life? First of all, you should know that you will always have
 that healthy anxiety to know what will happen and how the
 moment will behave. As Wellington said, "I've spent my life
 trying to guess what I'll find behind the next hill or around
 every corner."
The following rules summarize the experience of great 
drivers: a) Always do and say the right thing and do not 
worry about the consequences and b) Live your life as if
 you will ever have to explain each of your actions. Be your
 most severe judge.
For those who follow a Christian ethic, these guidelines
 will allow them to say as Job "I will not abandon the
 justification I have begun to make, since nothing in 
my whole life discourses my conscience" (Job 27: 5-6)
• The great debates
To finish I would like to leave to the young reader the
 following concerns that encourage him to probe in the
 depths of life. It will help them to be better people and,
 as one philosopher said, "it is better to be a dissatisfied 
Socrates than a satisfied fool".
Is morality based on reason or feelings (David Hume)? 
Is there a universal feeling? Are we part of a constant internal 
struggle between pleasure and pain (Jeremy Bentham)?
Are we an integral part of a huge system (Benedict Spinoza)?
 Is the concept of the general will important
 (Jean-Jacques Rousseau)? Does human nature vary
 according to the society in which it moves (Friedrich Hegel)? 
Is freedom obtained only by disappearing the dichotomy 
between personal interest and general interest (Karl Marx)
 Is there no God and man was not created for any 
particular reason (Jean-Paul Sartre)? What happens when 
we try to universalize moral ideals (R.M.Hare)? Does altruism
 have a rational basis (Thomas Nagel)? Should each one attend 
exclusively to his own interests (Ayn Rand)? What are the basic 
and good human values ​​accepted by the Catholic Church 
(John Finnis)? Do we have a soul and our bodies are the means to
 achieve spiritual goals (St. Augustine)?