issue43 未限时修改版，帮忙继续挑刺

ringtailbunnyUID: 2579853

TOPIC: ISSUE43 - "To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards."
WORDS: 423
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010/2/17 16:15:36

Whether a successful leader needs to pursue the highest standards of ethics and morality is a complex issue- that requires the distinctive forms of leadership to be taken into consideration in the first place. I agree with the speaker insofar as it is limited in some certain fields, like politics and social leadership because the impression of the public counts in one's career; but not in some other professions like business or anything else related to profits that the ultimate goal is other things rather than the reputation of the society.

In the realm of politics and social leadership, few can deny that ethic and morality are the basic requirement of effective leadership. In prevailing views, the definition of a successful politician and of a moral and ethical one is tied up in the criteria possessed by the mainstream of the society. For example, we view the leader who balances the profits of all the classes by drawing different rate of tax and save the finance cost of the government to pay more on its people a effective one, which highly strikes to the common morality. As a result, the desire to fit these criteria would force the arbitrator to make his decision on the behalf of the whole society. And in turn these decisions will play a pushing role for the leader galvanizing more support and strengthen his weight. A case involved is Gandhi, who led the nonviolent resistance against the British rules of colonization, inspired not only by his agile action but also by his grandness and morality. His asceticism of behaviors, abstinence of meat and avocations of nonviolence win him the support of the Indian, high reputation of the media and public all around the world and even the respect of his political rivals.

In the realms of business, however, ethic and morality seems not so crucial. Generally speaking, a successful businessman acts excellently on its own behalf, which is often equal to the endlessly hunting for the maximum profits of the shareholders instead of those of the society. More often than not can we hear about immoral tactics within the law, such as spy on rival's commercial decisions, nibbling rival's markets or even doing harm to the whole society. But we already accept them and even regard them as an essential part of business. Take the industry of tobacco as an instance. It is universally known that nicotine in the cigarette could contribute to diseases like pneumonia, enervation and cancer, and businessman in this field is against the basic morality and ethics. However, as a businessman, he can still achieve his goal in this field. And sometimes the government even praises these men for their magnificent contribution to country's revenue, of course, on the level of business. Otherwise, striking too much to the highest standards would be a nonfactor, a distraction or even a disservice to one's business. Consequently, to pursue the successful business, one should be engaged in the ensuring the profit of the shareholders than in pursuing the morality and ethics.

But what contributes to these distinctions?

By digging up the hypostasis of each profession, we can found each has its own ultimate goal, just like support of its people to politics or profit maximization to business. And the difference of these goals leads to the distinctive altitudes to morality and ethics. Some goals are likely to be achieved by striking to the morality and ethics, just like the support of people. Otherwise, blemish performance can also induce the disaster to one's career. For example, Nixon's series of lies made people suspect his power and morality, and finally contributed to the scandal Water Door which means the end of his career in politics. In these professions, leadership should fit the standards. However, some goals of other fields have little connection with the morality, such as business mentioned above and diplomacy whose goal is to protect the nation's profit in the world. We can hardly imagine a businessman or diplomat do a excellent job merely by striking to the criterion about morality and ethics, if he fails to enlarge the sum of money or enhance the profits of shareholders or to get profit of his nation. And in these fields, the judgment of morality and ethics seems not so crucial.


In sum, this issue works in some certain circumstances like politics and social leadership but do not work in some other realms like business. The contributor to these phenomena is the different role of morality and ethic play to achieve the success of each profession.

bzr2915UID: 2612029

怎么感觉有点北美风？

qisaimanUID: 2703629

两个疑问
[public official  包括商人么，我也不太确定，倾向于否定]
【题目是要保持最高的道德水准，这个论调的反面不是向尼克松那样吧。如果仅仅是平凡的人，又会怎么样呢】

ringtailbunnyUID: 2579853

3# qisaiman
这两个问题我都考虑过的。
第一个商人是从北美范文上面的分类上看到的，就借用了一下它的分类。感觉ets好像不大苛求对题目的精确范围，稍微大一点小一点关系不是特别大吧~（我是这么认为的:L ）
第二个确实是出现了非好即坏的错误，我当时写的时候想不出来怎么写一半的，感觉不好举例子。。然后就这么写了，好像这个问题是个共性问题，很难把issue写的像argument那样的。。然后我又坦然了:L
发现我特别善于放松对自己的要求。。。

我还是觉得对例子的分析不到位，例子出来都没怎么演绎，都两句就完了。。。。