|
新手上路
- 帖子
- 3
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 6
- 学识
- 3
- TS元
- 0
- 威望
- 0
- 魅力
- 0
- TS岁
- 5
|
1#
大 中
小 发表于 2008-8-1 19:59 只看该作者
issue 43~~欢迎指教或者探讨思路！~~
本人第一篇Issue哈~~本身是英语专业所以一直没有着急下笔~只是之前帮别人改过一些习作和写过部分提纲~~不过真上手写起来才发现没那么轻松~ ~汗~~  ~~希望大家猛烈拍砖哈！！！
ISSUE43 - "To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards."
WORDS: 495
Sticking to moral standards has long been regarded as a virtue that all human beings should cherish, as I firmly believe. Yet, when it comes to effective leaders, this golden rule may not be of perpetual power. In my view, there is nothing wrong in underscoring ethics, whereas morality and the effectiveness of a leader are mutually exclusive and we shouldn't judge a leader merely by his morals.
Admittedly, on no account should we neglect the positive impact, on his subordinates or even the environment in which he works,of a righteous official. People are more inclined to trust a leader with favorable reputation, especially in conforming with moral standards. Beyond doubt, this is more than natual since it is
universally acknowledged that the magic of morality can faciliate people with the resistance to material temptations or other crimes, power abuse and corruption included. Therefore, those high-minded models, Gundi and Martin luther King. Jr for instance, play significant roles in influencing people's behaviors and reestablishing moral principles apart from fulfilling their own obligations. That is to say, their high ethics imposes comprehensive spiritual impact on their followers, not only making them repected and trusted by the public but also enhancing a progressing society.
Futhermore, without a well-preserved morality, leaders are usually vunerable to crimes and even dictatorship. Back in history, we can name quite a few officials as to illustrate this point. In the west we have Hitler who maintained virtually no morals, notorious for his "final solution" which rendered bloody genocide in the Jews; In the east we know Yin Zheng, emporor of Qin Dynasty in ancient China, who burned numerous historical masterpieces and meanwhile buried thousands of scholars. Aparently, their inhumane deeds and catastrophic consequences could have been averted if someone with high ethical standards were in power, rather than them.
Nevertheless, those are extreme examples relatively remote from our modern socity. In contemporary times, so greatly highlighted and rooted is democracy in people's minds that dictatorship or even slavery is rarely seen. Moreover, cases in politicians can be remarkably intricate and sophisiticated. There is no need to make political figures moral models and meanwhile it is not possible come true. Statemen as they are, they are supposed to deem national interest as their first priority. Thus on certain ocassions they have to sacrifice or violate certain moral principles. Training special agents to work in confidence and interceiving information from other contries illegally are just good cases in point. Under such conditions, we should acknowledge their effectiveness in being pulic officials, instead of simply blaming them for those "immoral" operations since they do that for the whole nation's good.
In conclusion, we shouldn't confuse spiritual models with effective leaders. There is no denying that leaders should maintain high ethical and moral standards, however, we should also beaware that nor is there a definite link between the highest morals and excellent leaders whose duties sometimes infringe moral borders, thus placing morality in the second place.
搜索更多相关主题的帖子:
issue 习作
|
