[pooh的百宝箱] [color=#ff00d1]POOH百宝箱政治类之二—Leaders, Politics and Morality [复制链接]

pooh
UID: 146994

元老版主

Rank: 11

声望: 8
寄托币: 17151
注册时间: 2003-10-10
精华: 27
帖子: 6

发表于 2004-7-3 23:17:29 |显示全部楼层

Note: 请下载附件的版本

MORALITY AND POLITICS
IN A CHANGING WORLD
VASSIL PRODANOV

_______________________________________________

Every crucial social change alters the essence of the activities in the different social spheres, and is manifested in new interconnections between those spheres. The changes in Eastern Europe and the global processes of democratization in the contemporary world lead, firstly, to alterations in the concept of morality and politics. For when, in both spheres, there begin to prevail elements which are common to all mankind, new elements appear in values and their regulation. Secondly, they lead to changes in the structure of the interrelations between politics and morality, and vice versa. All this revives the ancient problem of the relation between morality and politics.

Both morality and politics serve to regulate or direct human behavior. They differ, however, in the strength of their regulation and demand different, though related, personal qualities. Groups, classes and separate persons are interrelated morally. Depending on the concrete historical political peculiarities of this interrelation, some moral qualities of a politician can be easily developed, while others, which concretely and historically conflict with his policy and political goals, could cease to develop and become rudimentary and opposite qualities.

As a regulator, morality is directed towards the other: it concerns interpersonal relations and interrelations between the person and group. In contrast to morality, politics regulates mainly relations between the groups and the state and between the different socio-political organizations; directly or indirectly these are connected with the function of state power.

Therefore, the boundaries between the spheres of morality and politics are very flexible. In some periods particular relations can be regulated by moral mechanisms, which in other periods are ruled by political ones. The interaction between those mechanisms depends on the particular social contradictions and the objective possibilities of achieving class, national and state goals by acting in accordance with, or neglecting, respective moral values and norms.

THE SUBORDINATION OF MORALITY
TO POLITICS AND VICE VERSA
The mutual subordination between morality and politics depends upon additional factors as well. The deeper the contradictions between persons, classes and nations the more real the possibilities of separation, contradiction and conflict between morality and politics. In such a situation the health and life, as well as the satisfaction of the ordinary needs of single persons, easily could be neglected in the pursuit of political goals. The main mechanism of the contradictions between morality and politics are the politization of morality and the moralization of politics. The moralization of politics consists in disregarding the specific character of the political sphere and the tendency to use morality to explain political goals and to solve political problems although this remains objectively impossible for a given historical stage or definite social group. The politization of morality consists in the introduction of political principles and criteria for the regulation of the relations between persons and between groups and persons through a replacement of morality by politics. In spheres where morality should have a relatively independent role, it is identified with politics or its influence is restricted to situations in which there is no danger that it can conflict with politics. Such a politization is characteristic of periods of revolution and great social clashes where the individual person faces the need to join actively in the life-and-death struggle for the defence of the global interests of the class and the nation.

When political theory, ideology and practice come into sharp contradiction with the morality of the people, they lose their efficacy and in the end are doomed to failure. Therefore, every political theory, ideology and practice seeks moral justification and arguments in order to be accepted by the masses. But when political theory contradicts to some degree the morality of people or masses, then politicians seek to camouflage this contradiction with political demagogy. The higher the stage at which the politics of a definite organization, party or state contradicts the moral values of the people, the stronger the need for demagogy and the greater the use of different means of propaganda for this purpose.

The moral feelings of the popular masses are the most direct early indicators of whether the actions of the political system are justified. That most people begin to accept certain political actions and organizations as discordant with their moral feelings indicates an emerging crisis in the society. A political system which takes morality into consideration does not in principle go beyond certain moral boundaries. Moreover, through its functioning the system it strengthens those bounds and forms appropriate moral qualities in the persons. All this means that political and moral goals, means and actions can contradict one another only within certain bounds; if those are trespassed the political system is threatened by instability and failure.

No socially important action is without a positive or negative moral dimension. All political actions are carried out by persons and concern relations between persons. Relations between separate persons in the political sphere are based on a certain moral code which is produced spontaneously in political practice. This can also be made public officially and serve as one of the bases for evaluating politicians on behalf of the populace as well as on behalf of the different political institutions, units and representatives of the political hierarchy. Depending on the peculiarities of the political goals, means and practices of a certain group or organization, the moral code which influences the behaviour of the politicians will correspond to or contradict in some degree their moral demands.

The Power of Character
___________________
Nobody is utterly good or bad. This is a crucial fact to keep in mind when we try to depict a person’s overall character. We are, each of us, a complex set of selves, integrated — more or less — into a whole. Yet the whole is all but impossible to evaluate. So we look at the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and we are likely to judge him highly based on the power of his prophetic ministry despite evidence of tawdry morality in his personal life. We look at — oh, say Adolph Hitler — and, judge him as evil because we know of his murderous hatefulness that led to the deaths of millions. We do not much care whether he carried candy in his pockets to give to children, as some of his biographers claim.

When we make moral evaluations of famous people we often focus on a single dimension of their character. For our evaluations of the famous are often not meant to be thorough moral profiles but teaching tools. We tend to single out the traits we want to avoid or emulate. So we use George Washington as a man too complicated to be categorized.
The Moral Character of Political Leaders

Discussion of the private morality of our political leaders reached new heights during the Presidency of Bill Clinton. Highly publicized accusations that he had a long-term adulterous affair with Gennifer Flowers and that he sexually harassed Paula Jones in his years as Governor of Arkansas were capped by an intensive investigation of charges that, as President, he had an improper sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern. With all the righteous indignation one would think he was the first President to be charged with improper sexual conduct. Yet even a cursory review of the private lives of past Presidents reveals substantial evidence that Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy had extramarital affairs. Thomas Jefferson, many believe, fathered children by one of his slaves. And Grover Cleveland confessed to having an illegitimate child.

Much of the press and most of Mr. Clinton’s most ardent detractors expressed amazement that through the worst of the Monica Lewinsky charges, he maintained extraordinarily high approval ratings for the job he was doing as President. Yet it may be quite sensible to look at President Clinton and his predecessors — or for that matter, any people currently in public life — and distinguish between their public selves and their private selves, evaluating each independently. Our willingness to make this sort of private-public distinction affects more than presidents. It affects the very language we use to describe which public figures are morally good and which people are not. It goes, really, to our deepest understanding of the existence and nature of the private sphere — the sphere into which, in the best American tradition, one simply does not pry.

The wall between public and private is an important one to maintain even if it means we will sometimes ignore personal traits or conduct that could well diminish our opinion of the overall person. We should maintain this wall not to protect public figures from the judgments that might naturally flow from their conduct but because we should prize and protect the idea of privacy. Privacy, after all, is vital to our essence. It comes with our humanity that we are entitled to a region where we can freely think, speak, and behave with confidence that we are, for that instant, on our own. This is not to deny the importance of norms of conduct in holding the community together. Norms are crucial. Community is crucial. The links we form to others are crucial. But so are spaces to be ourselves. Moreover, a life without privacy would be psychologically intolerable.

Politicans Are Not And Should Not Be Moral Leaders
I think it is very naive, not to mention inappropriate, to look to politicians for moral leadership. Why do I say that? Well it is very simple when you think about it. Living by a cut and dry (cut and dry = routine) , universal standard of principles is simply NOT feasible, but it may also render him or her completely ineffective at their job. What is a politician’s job? Well I am glad you asked. A politician’s job is to build, maintain, and expand the wealth, prosperity and political influence of his nation, district, county, state or what have you. This is his or her primary concern. Many more times than you and I would like to think, realizing those goals require them to make choices that are outside the bounds of morality.
Moral leaders think in terms of a deontological approach to ethics and morals while the political leader thinks in terms of consequences or a utilitarian approaches to ethics and morality.

_______________________

Ethics & Leadership
by Ken Rushton, Director, Institute of Business Ethics
Barely a month goes by without another survey being published showing how the public distrusts business and its leaders. For example, a recent MORI survey shows: 58% of European consumers say industry does not pay enough attention to its social responsibilities. The figure for British consumers is 71% and only Finnish consumers are more critical of business. An earlier MORI survey in the UK showed that 40% of industry leaders agree and, interestingly, a similar percentage of investors.
What ethical conduct and socially responsible behaviour have in common is they both start from values and, when applied effectively, both enhance the company's reputation and so contribute to performance and shareholder value.

Embedding Values
Managements of most large businesses recognise the importance of values and they articulate their values in codes of conduct. But how many of them seek to embed their values and the ethical behaviour that should flow from them into their culture? How many seek to do this consistently across all their operations world-wide? How many simply produce their code of conduct, send it to their employees, stick it on the corporate website and say job well done?

The most important part of the implementation process is the example and leadership given by senior management. Directors and Managers who walk the talk and demonstrate their integrity. Managers who are not afraid to talk about values. They can talk about values in business performance terms: values as a source of competitive advantage; values that underpin corporate reputation and reinforce risk management; values that are part of the intangible assets of the business

Reputation Management
Company leaders are responsible for reputation management. They need to be inspiring role models of values-based leadership. Such leadership is more likely to result in employees giving the company their loyalty and superior performance. Employees want to feel proud of the company they work for as well as comfortable with its culture and values.
Increasingly, in knowledge based industries, the distinctive competitive factor will be the ability to attract and retain the most talented people. There is a need to establish an organisation culture (values, beliefs, behaviour) which gives each employee the opportunity to obtain personal fulfilment. A fulfilled employee is one more likely to give outstanding performance. Employees are individuals with differing physical, mental and emotional needs so they need to be treated as individuals. Above all, a company that wants to create an organisation culture in which employees are more likely to find fulfilment must define its values and embed them in its lifeblood. It must then, of course, live up to those values. The requirement for CEOs therefore is to establish a corporate culture which encourages responsible behaviour while releasing the creative potential of the workforce.

Sustainable Development
How do companies, particularly large companies, go about building their reputations and earning trust? Modern managers need not only to be able to talk about values in business performance terms but they must be able to consider values and ethics in strategic terms. The concept that enables them to do this is sustainability or sustainable development. The modern multinational will include sustainability in its strategic plan, and will have a coherent corporate responsibility strategy based on sound ethics and shared values which will deliver clear business benefits - not least an improvement to its reputation. Good business and sustainable development go hand in hand.

In every business, including small businesses and dot.coms, a focus on traditional ethical values will not only provide some stability and consistency, in the face of a world of accelerating change, but will also enable those businesses to command greater trust from their stakeholders and to become more successful.

A business that doesn't invest in building trust will, over time, be rejected by the markets, by investors, by its customers and above all by its own people - its employees.

相关题目：
43.To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards.【43】
一个公仆如果想成为一位杰出的领导者就必须保持最高的伦理和道德标准。

167. It is impossible for an effective political leader to tell the truth
all the time. Complete honesty is not a useful virtue for a politician.
对于一个英明的政治领导者来说，总是坦白是不可能的。彻底的诚实对于一个政治家来说是无用的美德。

169 Those who treat politics and morality as though they were separate realms fail to understand either the one or the other. 【169】
那些把政治和道德看成是两码事的人是既不懂政治也不懂道德的。

附件: 你需要登录才可以下载或查看附件。没有帐号？立即注册

[pooh的百宝箱] [color=#ff00d1]POOH百宝箱政治类之二—Leaders, Politics and Morality [复制链接]

Thanks~

Cancer巨蟹座

荣誉版主

Gemini双子座

GRE斩浪之魂

Golden Apple