[每日一题][ISSUE43][思路积累&讨论][20100713]

lvruochenUID: 2792806

不要回答会不会忽略了别的要素~
我就是想知道，遵守highest moral standard就有可能不effective了吗

lingli_xiaoaiUID: 172506

moral standards defines as people's sense of right and wrong, no matter how high the moral standards that one want to have, he or she is making subjective decisions,which could be moral but bring more damage to the society than benefits,  especially when there is no clean cut between moral and immoral.

Under such circumstance, personal believe will get in the way of making right decisions, that why there is a famous judge who never watch TV, since he doesn't want to be influenced by the standards of general public. As a judge, he should make decision solely based on the law, not personal feeling towards a suspect or victim, certainly, not base on his own moral standards.

Moreover, people had highest moral status more often that not, have strong believe of their faith,thus might go to extreme in order to prevent people do things that they considered as immoral.

For example, if a leader believe all people who have scandals (in money or in personal life) should be severely punished based on his moral status, say, put them in jail for a year or several years. it would be consider too serve a punishment, make the general public think he or she is cruel, thus inappropriate to be a leader.  

(ignore my grammar mistakes, as I meant to type in chinese, but I cannot not)

lingli_xiaoaiUID: 172506

thus when a leader loses the trust from the general public or makes wrong decisions based on his or her own discretion (moral standards), his or her leadership is no longer effective in any sense. On the another hand, a leader with just average moral status, who is willing to compromise and make right choice for the group despite his own feeling towards it, is fully capable to be an effective leader. In sum, highest moral status is hardly "a must" or required to become leader.

One more things I like to say is,  a leader cannot do whatever, he or she wants, there are laws, general public, other officials watching their every step, even he or she want to do something immoral, it is hard. then, why we require the highest moral status, anyway.

Certainly, we cannot elect a criminal as president, but we can have one could do the job, and never try to break the law. Considering the fact everyone has dark little secrets, why excluding leaders, as long as they don't put their dirty ideas into practice

aphasiafifiUID: 2475704

但是public official 的定义 是必须government related job
公司和团队 不行吧。。
lingli_xiaoai 发表于 2010-7-13 19:00

同問，對於public official的定義到底是什麽?
因為大家好像把目標都定義在了political leader上

北美范文精选里面的范文就把这个分为了三类讨论每一类是否需要highest moral standard
：商业领袖，政治领袖，精神领袖

还是说限定在政治领袖比较好写？
（比如说可以说政治领袖并不是精神领袖，所以‘highest’对他们来说其实是不成立的？）

lingli_xiaoaiUID: 172506

因為大家好像把目標都定義在了political leader上

this is a good point....I am confused about what public official actually refer to , but after looked up in dictionary, personally I believe in order to be an official, you need to work for the government or in the law area]. so i would not risk myself to discuss other kinds of leader, unless re-define the term at the beginning. then you are ok.  just as issue samples you read. you refine the topic the way you want to discuss it, since there is really no right answer to each topic, as long as your argument stands on its own, you should be fine.

hyyearUID: 2530283

提问：伦理和道德标准在对于一个领导的行为有哪些作用？
草木也知愁 发表于 2010-7-13 09:36

伦理道德是在领导力形成的过程中其主要作用，特别是在过去，也就是说，一个人因为有很高的伦理道德标准，群众才愿意相信他，拥护他，给予他权力。因为这种人更倾向于为社会考虑，而不是自己，更能能表现出公正。这也是一种大众参与政治的成本最低的行为。
而有效性，主要是存在于，权力的应用，主要包括决策，和执行。
决策方面，主要靠能力，而人们更倾向于认为一个有高的道德标准的人也有很强的能力，因为他有更高的精神力量，他有更强大的意志力，正如同，人们偏向于一个名牌大学生有更强的能力一样。但这种关系不必然。
执行方面，在国家机构相对简单的时候，人们拥护他，就会有很好的执行。而现在，国家工作的执行，有强有力的各种条例以及法律条文，还有大众和媒体的监督，就更多的变成了一个系统的问题，这样，一个人的伦理的道德标准作用就会弱化，就更不是必需的了。现代领导人的效率，必须基于一个有理性的独立判断能力的大众更多的参与政治的热情和程度的基础上的，因此，伦理道德标准给民众带来的影响也在弱化。


提问：如果不考虑伦理道德标准，到底会对一个领导的行为产生什么影响？