It is not mutually exclusive for a leader to be effective
and ethically good, although sometimes one must be compromised in order to
achieve greater success in the other. For example, while trying to settle a
dispute between two group members, the most effective solution may not be
ethically correct in order for both sides to agree. On the other hand, if a
leader tries to please everyone and always do what is ethically correct, it
would take too much effort, become a waste of time, and in the end leave everyone
frustrated and unsatisfied.
In my opinion, being a good leader does require
being flexible under certain situations. As Machiavelli stated, sometimes
princes need to commit necessary evil in order to secure their position as a
leader. However, that extends to a certain degree, and must only be used when
absolutely necessary.
To me, the line is crossed from necessary evil to morally
wrong when the sacrifices outweigh the beneficial outcomes. For example,
President Truman's bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is definitely ethically
dubious, yet nobody would argue against his decision because it saved the
Allies months of time and thousands of soldiers' lives. From the point of view
of a leader, it was a great decision even though it might have been morally wrong
to sacrifice so many innocent citizens.
On the other hand, although George W.
Bush declared war on Iraq due to reasons of international security in the end
more harm was done than good. The only conclusions were deaths and negative
publicity. In Machiavelli terms, not only did the end results fail to benefit the
nation, he also failed to cover up his necessary evils, thus giving him a bad
reputation.
No comments:
Post a Comment