The Moral Code Of Government And Leadership

Do you feel that your leaders ever fail to use their authority in the way you believe they should? James Madison believes that government is power, and since humans are in charge of the right, it always has the ability of being misused. Communities revert to chaos when the authority figures abuse the influence they have. Madison’s argument is correct because people in general need strong rulers, so if the privilege given to the superiors is exploited, society begins to break down.

“... Has nobody observed that as soon as the government becomes the property of a separate class, it starts to grow out of all proportion and that posts are created not to meet the needs of the governed but of those who govern them?...” (Sieyès).

The duty of government is described in John Adams as to, “inculcate the principles of humanity, charity, industry, frugality, honesty, sincerity.” (224) In summation, the government’s ideals ought to be to instill virtue to its citizens with persistent instruction. However, Politics takes command of government when men disagree on when, how, and to what extent those virtues ought to be instilled. Politics controls people, which brings a motivation for corruption; and at the same time, people control politics, allowing that corruption to become manifest. However, politics cannot be corrupt on it’s own, rather through its composition of men and their thoughts contributes to its corruption. Politics will only be corrupt if those composing it

Recently, everyone has begun to wonder the same thing: why are so many leaders so… corrupt? Why do they care only about a miniscule group of people, throwing aside morals altogether? The feeling of power creates a superiority complex, letting power go to a leader’s head and giving them the desire and means to execute terrible things. This is a problem because many people in our world acquire their power because others believe they can improve the world. Once power takes control, they become corrupt. It is essential for the public to understand this because otherwise, people in power will gain this complex.

The United States of America was founded with the remarkable purpose of unifying a multitude of states-homes to citizens all of cultures and beliefs-whom shared a similar goal of creating a life of freedom and prosperity. In order to secure structure and solidity within an entire nation, it has always been extremely vital to maintain a regulatory government with a strong constitution to represent its citizens as a whole. However, the government can often represent the character of the American man in a way which misinterprets his very intentions. When morals and ethics are found to be void within our governmental institution, and it then becomes a “corporation without conscious”, civil disobedience can be the vital key in awakening human emotions

Humans cannot always be expected to follow their conscience completely; if they did, they would be perfect. Perfection is, in my opinion, contrary to the basic characteristics of humanity. Paine also asserts that “the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants” that humanity must rely on others, such as those within the necessary evil of government, to accomplish goals (1). These new insights helped me realize the link between the ‘big’ ideas of government and revolution and individual human nature, deepening my understanding and appreciation of Common

Applicable in any free society, these timeless truths emphasize that obligations to the government are dependent on said government upholding its obligations to the citizen; if it fails to accomplish this, there is no greater duty than for the citizen to resist. Indeed, it was these truths that persuaded English colonists of the 1700’s to blatantly protest unfair treatment, and these truths that justified America’s declaration of sovereignty. Thomas Jefferson’s assertion of a government-fearing people as a state of “tyranny” and a people-fearing government as one of “liberty” illuminates the role of the people - the entity that a government should be “servant”

Every form of politics needs to answer the questions of who has political power, what should the social order be like, and when should or shouldn’t the government interfere. So, who has political power? Each country has a form of government where there are one or many persons with power. In a democracy, the people elect the government. In a monarchy, power is passed on through the family, with no say from the people. In each political system, the social order needs to be determined by either the government or the citizens. That leads to, what should the social order be like? Here, we need to figure out if the government should “make” the citizens good, or should they be left alone. Social order helps us determine if the citizens or the government

For all of history there has existed the struggle between the strong and the weak. The establishment of government gives the power to a particular group to decide the amount of freedom the majority is allowed, however, though not ideal it provides necessary order. The benefits of security that limitations on freedom provides must be balanced with the individual's pursuit of happiness for citizens to be content. To prevent the governed majority from destabilizing the rulers and seeking power, the government will oppress political and personal freedom of thought. In result, the majority will live under the illusion of contentment and not wish to revolt; those enlightened to the idea that the government should be ruled by the governed, would associate happiness only with ignorance and consequently seek freedom.

Institutions of government, in principle, exist to oversee and serve a population. This constituency can be anything from a small town to the largest nation in the world, and often these boundaries and their governments cooperate and interact with one another. In order for a government to be effective and legitimate, the populace that it presides over must exercise a certain amount of consent to be governed, a de facto contract between a citizen and their rulers. This consent represents a vote of confidence in the government to represent one’s interests adequately and protect them from transgressions against their persons and property in the pursuit of civil society. In practice, this means that citizens must relinquish at least some of their liberties in the interest of a system that benefits as many people as possible the most. This is a slippery slope -- tyrannical governments can arise from liberties being compromised, one by one, until too few remain and the contract has given way to control.

Since the development of human society, people have followed some form of leadership or abided by a government. Be it as simple as the rules of village elders or as abstract as the fear of divine punishment by their god, societies function under rules and laws which attempt to ensure the survival of their community. In modern history, civilizations have moved away from monarchies and feudal systems and into intricate large scale polarized governments. In this global community governments vary in their placement on the political spectrum. Two of these political theories which hail from the opposite reaches of the political compass are communism and fascism. Throughout history governments implementing these

Government is the most important one among the elements of a state. Without a government, a state cannot be formed. The government may be changeable and can be formed in different types. In the world, the government varies from state to state. The thinkers have argued the classification in a different way at different times. Lots of discussions have been taken part over the form of governments. They mainly focused on that which form is the best one among all the forms of government. Every form of government is different from another. As a consequence, it is very difficult to pin down the single factor that most closely ties to “goodness.” The form of government’s values may determine its agreeability to a particular individual or group. On the contrary, its corruptibility determines how likely it is to adhere to those values in the real world when subjects to the rigor of human nature.

Discussions about political morality and leadership often lead differences of opinion over the means to attaining them even in the face of numerous consensuses about the nature and scope of the end itself. This means that most commentators on the issue disagree on many philosophical or procedural bases but yet agree on some. A classic example of this dualism is represented in the leadership lessons covered by Cicero, on the one hand, and Machiavelli on the other. Whereas their lessons are fundamentally divergent in many regards, there are some subtle points of implicit convergence. The purpose of this essay is to assess with a comparison and contract of the lessons as found by the assigned writings of Cicero and Machiavelli. Both of these books providers time-tested theories and assertions that have been used to obtain and sustain power and leadership.

Governments are put in place to help run the country and make it the best place for the citizens. There is a problem, however when the leaders begin to

When one thinks about the work of governments throughout history, they look like extremely obnoxious, or at least dangerous, artefacts, for which the need, and, consequently, the conditions and limits, require moral justification. The mere fact that the government prescribes something to us does not morally justify our doing it (though it may prudentially justify it, and therefore, in some cases it may morally excuse it). The decision to obey a government must be an autonomous one – one that, like any decision which can affect other people, we should justify on the basis of a freely accepted moral principle. But if this is so, to what extent are we really obeying the government and not simply governing ourselves? And if the moral person always governs himself, what, for him, is the moral relevance of having a government (besides solving co-ordination problems or altering the factual setting)?