To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards. Write a response in which yo

admin2020-10-09  36

问题 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 address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.

选项

答案 Political pundits often debate what characteristics a political leader must have. Some argue that in order to be effective, a government official has to hold the highest ethical and moral standards so that they can amass enough followers to lead. Although this argument seems reasonable at first glance and can be supported with several examples, I do not think that sticking to the highest ethical and moral standards necessarily leads to an effective leader. To begin with, those who underscore the importance of ethical and moral standards would claim that in order to become an effective leader, one has to demonstrate a personal charisma to attract followers. A corollary is that he or she must be morally sublime. Mohandas Gandhi for example is undeniably a great leader in Indian National Liberation Movement. His principle of non-violent disobedience not only laid the foundation of his struggle against the British colonial power but also inspired future national liberation movements across the globe. Some would argue that it was his high level of personal morality that drew millions of followers at home and abroad, while he was alive and after his passing away. His posthumous title "Mahatma", which literally means "great-souled", serves as a living proof of his reputational legacy. That being said, I find the lines of reasoning and the example above not sufficiently convincing, because a high moral and ethical standard does not necessarily mean an effective leader. In the case of Mahatma Gandhi, I do not deny that Gandhi is characterized by a near perfect personality and extremely admirable moral principles, but it remains unproven that it is his very moral principles that made him widely revered by people around the world. Here, I venture to argue that admiration of Gandhi’s morality is more directly related to the cause of Indian independence and his non-violent resistance. Moreover, his competence and success in uniting people in the Indian subcontinent also contributed to his esteemed reputation. The bottom line is that moral standards alone could not necessarily guarantee an effective leadership. The case of Emperor Wanli could serve as an appropriate example here. The 13th Emperor of the Ming dynasty held the supreme power for more than four decades, but despite his maintaining high ethical and moral principles in accordance with traditional Confucius teaching, little was achieved under his reign. Indeed, his indifference to political affairs is often thought to make possible the fight for power between different factions. This internal power struggle, originating from Wanli’s ineffective leadership, ultimately led to the weakening of the Ming dynasty. Finally, I would like to demonstrate that even if a public official does not hold the highest moral or ethical standards, he or she may still become an effective leader. For instance, Winston Churchill is well regarded as an effective leader for his contribution in leading the British people against the invasion of Nazi Germany. Yet from a personal perspective, Churchill was an imperialist who believed in the superiority of the white Anglo-Saxon people to other races. Such a blatant expression of racism would deprive him of any moral superiority, but it did not render him an effective leader. A similar example is Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States of America. Since his election bid, Trump has been surrounded by scandals, ranging from his racist and sexist remarks to allegations of sexual harassment. At any rate, it would be difficult to argue that Trump maintains the highest moral standards, but he did manage to execute several orders according to his conservative political vision. In the eyes of many conservative Republican voters, Trump may be the most effective president since Ronald Reagan. These two prominent political figures illustrate that admirable moral principles are not the requisite for an effective leader, because fundamentally speaking, the purpose of public officials is to serve the people that vote the leaders into office. If the officials succeeded in fulfilling the promise made to the voters, they could be viewed as effective. To summarize, the existence of ineffective leaders sticking to rigorous moral principles and effective leaders with blemishes on their personalities argue against the notion that officials must hold the highest moral standards in order to be an effective leader. While for certain leaders—such as Gandhi—their effective leadership may seemingly arise from their impeccable moral records, there are still many other factors at play in determining leadership effectiveness. (731 words)

解析     本文是GRE最为经典的政治类Issue题之一。它看起来说的是道德准则的重要性,但实则更为深层次的话题是:一个有效的领导人到底需要什么品质。针对这个问题,我们的落脚点最终会变成什么是effective,而为此我们必须要思考政府中领导的目的是什么。换言之,我们要思考的问题是“政府的目的是什么?”。
    在本文中,第三主旨段的最后一句话点出了文章的核心思想:只要一个领导人能够履行对选民的承诺、并为他或她的选民服务,那么这个领导人就可以被认为是卓有成效的。这很明显是一种功利主义(utilitarianism)的思路,但笔者想为此找一些传统政治学理论上的背书。这篇文章背后的逻辑可以用卢梭《社会契约论》中的理论来解读。卢梭认为:政治的本质是当权者与公民之间的一种契约关系,这种契约的必要性源自个体的脆弱与低效和集体的强大与高效。
    在这个契约中,公民放弃了自身的一部分自由,并且赋予了当权者(政府)一定的权力。而相反,被公民赋权的政府则需要为公民服务,提供诸如国防、教育、医疗等公共服务。因此,如果政府和政治家能够完成其基本的义务,那就是其有效性的体现。值得注意的是,在政府所需要实现的目的中,拥有最高的道德准则本身并不是其中之一。尽管如同第一段所说,一个圣人的道德感召力会增强其领导力,但这种看法其实也默认了道德只是实现领导力的一个促进因素,而非领导力本身。这就是为什么可能会存在“道德感很高但无力的领导人”(第二主旨段)和“道德感很差但有效的领导人”(第三主旨段)。想清楚这一点或许就不难理解,为什么当下西方许多政治家在个人道德上不堪,但民众却依然买他们的账——原因就是选民在选举过程中更看重政治家能否为他们的利益服务。在道德主义者看来,这无疑会是令人万分沮丧的局面,但“也许这就是生活”,是一种更基于实用主义的政治哲学。
    有了这些思考,本文的思路就呼之欲出了。要强调的是,本文举出了很多名人故事作为例证,这些需要日常生活当中的积累和有针对性的准备。另外,本文举了中国古代皇帝的例子,这对于外国人来说可能会比较陌生,因此在行文过程中一定要花额外的笔墨进行介绍。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/kHkO777K
0

最新回复(0)