Hello to those who are reading this article. Because I am a multi-faceted individual, what I am about to write may not be the version you expect to resemble me in real life.

Alright, without much ado, "Moral Foundations of Politics" is one of the Coursera courses I'm most passionate about. This course has opened up many layers of thought within me about various aspects of the moral spectrum of humanity. It has helped me challenge my point of view, enabling me to discover some of the oldest political theories placed in their historical contexts, and then nod in agreement when applying them to modern debates related to politics happening in many countries around the world today.

Right from the first lessons, a sharply penetrating question like a razor blade has gone through the minds of every loyal Party member (I'm not talking about the Communist Party, so don't anyone accuse me of being reactionary because this is a very friendly discussion and encourages multi-dimensional lenses from many sides). The question is excerpted from Hannah Arendt's book 'Eichmann in Jerusalem' (a report on the banality of evil published as a book in 1963). It goes, 'When do governments merit our allegiance, and when are we permitted—or perhaps even obliged—to disobey them?' Wow, hearing this makes one pause. Anyone who thinks I wrote this while sitting in a nail salon in California, let me clarify that I am still in Vietnam! My family has a revolutionary tradition; my father is a police officer, and I am a history student at Hanoi-Amsterdam High School (for the Gifted -.-), so I am 100% loyal to the Party and the State. So why do I raise such a controversial question? Is learning about politics or philosophy just an investment of time in completing hundreds of historical assignments, pondering over the Marxist doctrine in a billion pages—doesn't that sound tedious? I never want to waste my youth on that dry and impractical theory pile. So when I came across this question, it piqued my curiosity, and I genuinely enjoyed this course.

So why is there this question? This course essentially delves into numerous debates among philosophers. Even within Marxist theories, alongside its significant impact on humanity, one cannot ignore its limitations. I won't delve deeply into this because, as a student, I might be criticized for not having thorough insights, and at this age, unfortunately, I cannot know if my thoughts are truly insightful. Returning to the spirit of the course, everything seems to begin when a political scientist named Ian Hurd from Northwestern University supports the U.S. intervention in Syria's internal affairs in a brutal manner, including bombing, similar to the tactics the Pentagon used in the Vietnam War. Putting aside historical factors, let's discuss whether the actions of the U.S. government are legal. Obviously, they are not. I think so as a citizen of a neutral country (and of course, those white guys dropped bombs all over my country, what fairness are you asking for here?). Naturally, the principles and goals of the United Nations have always been to maintain world peace, stability, and security (the U.S. is a member of the UN Security Council), rather than to maintain the hegemony and dominance of Americans across the continents. However, somehow, the U.S. government used some sort of magic to "enchant" its citizens' belief that bombing in Syria and countless previous interventions worldwide were actually legal actions, that socialist societies are a bunch of chaos, and that “our job is to prevent those demons from invading Earth”. It's a paradox of discomfort, don't you start to notice? You know that the nature of an action is wrong, but we have to think in a way like... "Oh, it seems wrong, but...". Don't use the word "but," because if it's wrong, it's wrong. So why do people applaud the wrong? Simply because we always have our perspective when placing our angle to judge ethics. Even if the U.S. massacres millions of people, even if my country inadvertently benefits from these massacres, as I mentioned, I still abhor and vehemently oppose it. Your arguments about the legality of the U.S. military are wrong to me because millions of my compatriots died during the resistance from 1954-1975, not to mention the countless casualties in the war against French colonialists, supported by the U.S. from 1950 earlier. Therefore, the concept of right or wrong is meaningless because each nation will be impacted by an event from different perspectives. When applying the professor's perspective to reality, we suddenly realize that everything we learn about history is objective. Americans may sympathize to some extent because their relatives died in the invasion of Vietnam; we also have the right to empathize when our loved ones dead under the bombs of your army. I analyze it extensively because you should understand the starting point for debates related to the moral foundation of politics.

The above is the main question of the entire 8-week course, a question that challenges the 'complacency' of every citizen in unconsciously accepting the standards set by the government regarding their powers. For Americans, the government is just a company. The mission of this company is to use a capital source (which here is the tax money of the people) to invest in a variety of fields from education, and healthcare, to science and technology. I like this way of thinking; it's a win-win mindset. Citizens give you tax money to strengthen finance and their votes to solidify status. The rest lies in how a leader will utilize those resources effectively. I brought up this perspective to let people know that, fundamentally, the government is just an organization responsible for the development of the country, and citizens are essentially investors in that enterprise. The capital of our investor group is our tax money and perhaps... trust.

A little digression is enough; this course will help you address the question through six main themes.

I. Enlightenment Political Theory

II. Utilitarianism: Classical and Neoclassical

III. Marxism, Its Failures and Its Legacy

IV. The Social Contract Tradition

V. Enlightenment Politics

VI. Democracy