Tuesday, June 29, 2010
No Utopia Nor Perfect Reality
I believe there is no perfect form or type of government. The most essential component to build a good government is the morality-centered relationship between the leader and the followers. For the rulers, leadership should be a matter of give AND take, not give OR take.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe morality is arbitrary. When one does good, we refer to it as 'morally good' simply because doing good is doing good as we know it.
ReplyDeleteBut of morality as a function to the society - I would agree that a perfectly 'moral' state is perfect. For great ideas would only sprout in chaotic conditions.
It's should be more of the 'take' for the leader. In this way, he will acquire more, which he should, than his subordinates which I believe will maintain his power as a 'Prince'.
I believe and agree that there is no perfect government. The duties of the government should be done and accomplished by the government officials but of course, the citizens of the state should also do their part. There is no perfect government because nothing and no one is perfect. there would not be any room for improvement if there was perfection.
ReplyDeleteI forgot to point out that there has to be reciprocation between the leader and his followers. I don't think the leader should be taking more than giving. Both should be at a balanced state because when only one point is given attention, problems will possibly occur. Problems are inevitable. No matter how far we run from them, there is absolutely no escape. Prevention is a must for problems are like diseases that bring down a system, even a strong one. One prevention can pertain to good partnership. Unity must be formed despite the differences leaders and followers find among each other.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of maintaining power, one must hand it to someone worthier of the title if one is finding it heard to live up to his responsibilities. Rulers are actually not obliged to rule forever. Power should be given to those who are "willing", "passionate", "highly capable", and "ready". It is the same as going to the war "armed and prepared".
I agree that the success or effectivity of the governement no longer lies in the form or type of government since no type is perfect. I also think that it lies in the hands of the people and the leaders. Even the most effective form of government wouldn't be effective if it is run by the corrupt, the greedy and the incompetent.
ReplyDeleteMorality may then be a partial solution. The problem is some may argue that morals are relative. Such as Machiavelli's claim regarding two standards of morality. I, personally, would say that the best standard for morality is the bible, but, naturally, not everyone would agree.
Regarding morals, which would you rather have? A moral leader who is not the best at leading? Or one of the greatest leaders of all time but does not have many morals?
ReplyDeleteMorals can be such a pain when it comes to leading a group of people.
For example, lets assume everyone thinks that it is immoral to kill. Then one day there is a mass killing somewhere in the country caused by a group of people. If the leader were to address this issue, what exactly should we do? Obey the morals of society and just lock them up until death? Imagine the leader does that, and the murderers somehow escape and commit their atrocious acts again. Now what? Continue living by society's morals and just attempt to lock them up again knowing there may be a possibility of escape and the act being committed for a third time? Or should the leader give them the death penalty for their acts so that they will be unable to commit those acts again.
Which would you rather have? A loss of many lives with the risk of losing more? Or a loss of many lives while knowing that the killers will never kill again?
Obviously this is all very extreme; however, this is just what I think when it comes to morals. Yes, it is good to have morals so that a leader or anyone is not seen as immoral and crazy. However, when it comes down to it actions that may need immoral acts will possibly be needed for the good of society.
Again, this is just my opinion and most people would probably not agree.
Morality does not pertain to being a saint. It is just like having laws and bending them when needed. We do not need "all hearts" when an individual is leading. We need the mind in order to come up with a good strategy which will lead to the betterment of the society.
ReplyDeleteQuote this: "Know to be good or bad depending on the circumstances." (c) Nemenzo on Machiavelli.
There are things that are "ought to be", and there are some that are "necessary".