Home >> .

To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to addre

seonjungkim's picture

Some people argue that the highest standards of morality and ethic are required to the effective leaders when it comes to national leadership. In order to support this claims, they points to the fundamental role of morality. They assume that given the principle of reciprocity, only when a leader is moral and credible, the follower will believe and support him or her. That is, without the greatest morality, the leader will lose the respect and veneration from the public. And this result will inevitably lead to conflicts and serious inefficiency in the society. In my opinion, their opinion has some reasonable points, but still lacks consideration of important aspects of the issue. In particular, they fail to consider the fact that the highest standard of morality is not always required to prevent turmoil in society, and furthermore, the excessively high moral standard applied to leaders can be inefficient.
It is undeniable that the sense of morality, to the extent, is required to a leader. Unless they have basic morality, such as responsibility and fairness, it is likely that the leader will lose the support from the public. Because the drive that people hope to follow ethical leader who will reciprocally guarantee the interest of followers is quite strong. Especially, in virtue of development of technologies of information, the national leaders' improbity is comparatively easily reveled to the public nowadays. So that at least seemingly, the ethical and moral standards for the leader are more strictly required in modern society. However, the significance of morality does not denote the need of the greatest level of morality for every situation.
In fact, a leader is expected and asked to have many other ability apart from morality. For example, economical acumen and savvy are also counted as condition of efficient leader. If the national leader have enough ability in this field which offset the leader's lack of morality, it is still possible that the people will support and feel veneration for him. Of course, the shortcoming in morality can be potential danger that may endanger the welfare of people and the status of the leader at the same times, if the leader success to meet the balance, there will be no serious problem. For example, When the South Korea was rapidly developing in 1960's, the dictator Park was notorious for his improbity and corruption. However, due to his prowess in economy policies, he never lost the major support from the people by the time he was dead.
Futhermore, in some case, the excessive morality of individual leader can be harmful for welfare of the people. Let's think of the case of Joseon Dynasty. As a most strict Confucianism country, the nation emphasize the value of morality with the greatest effort. However, because of the unduly emphasis on the virtue of the leading group, normal people had to suffer the violation of basic human right. In particular, the situation against woman was serious. Many women were forced to summit suicide when the community around them pointed out the minor misbehavior of her. Because of the morality, ironically, there were less freedom, so that less welfare of individuals.
In conclusion, as we have seen above, it is plausible that the certain extent of morality of leader is necessary for stable society because of human being's reciprocal nature. However the requirement of the highest standard of morality to leaders seems to be not reasonable. Because it is possible to think of the many cases that less virtuous leader with other talents can be successful in being supported by the people, and the unduly and obdurate emphasis on morality even leads to damage to the welfare of the people.

Essay Categories: 
Votes: 
Your rating: None Average: 6.2 (1 vote)