Recent Forum Posts
From categories:
page 1123...next »

I remember in class a week or so ago we were discussing whether or not giving money to a cause was worthy of being a good deed. If you were to give money to terrorism people would definitely say that you were wrong so why is it not the same that giving money to a good cause is right. If I was to work for 8 hours and donate the money I earned to a cause how would that not be the same and directly working for that cause. I would say that it's not the amount of money you give but the amount of time you spend earning that money to give. For example if I made 100 in a day and donated it that would be a day of my life I donated to that cause. If Bill gates donated 100 bucks that would be like a second of his life he donated to that cause. It's all about the time and effort it takes to make your donation not just the sum of donation. Time is the most precious thing you can donate so I don't see the difference between volunteering for 8 or donating 8 hours of my pay check.

Is money moral? by Brian JohnsonBrian Johnson, 28 Jun 2009 05:06

Sometimes if someone won't listen to what you have to say you need to take a more drastic measure to get your voice heard and that is what Martin Luther King and his followers were doing. Our country is built on the foundation of freedom which was obviously being held from the black community. I think of it like if I went up to someone and talked a long of smack you would expect me to get beat up or at least get some smack talked back at me. That's what the whites were doing to the blacks at this time. You can't blame the guy I'm talking smack for beating me up after I brought it on myself just like you can't blame fault the civil rights movement after the whites wronged the blacks. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction and in this case denying freedom resulted in a reaction of demanding freedom by any means needed.

Re: Non-violent tension by Brian JohnsonBrian Johnson, 28 Jun 2009 04:58

I have to agree with what Jerod was talking about in class about this issue. Maybe there is a middle ground between being loved and hated that a leader should aim for. Most of the leaders in my life that I have respected I did not love or hate. The key word that a leader should aim for would be respect among his people. You can be loved but have no respect from the people. If you are to kind the people will take you for granted and walk all over you. On the other hand respect cannot be demanded by fear. A leader needs to earn respect by showing his strengths and his care for the people. The best leaders I have had in the military have been very stern but also look out for the best interests of his men. I did not love or hate them but I did have a lot of respect for them.

When I think about this I really don’t believe that the nature vs. nurture has anything to do with it. I think that we all grow up and for the most part we know the difference between right and wrong. I do though believe that the fear of being inadequate in the presence of others can affect our choices and our ability to act upon what we know is right vs. wrong. When there is someone standing over your shoulder watching your every move, this pressure makes it very hard to make decisions, even ones we know are right. Also, when that person is someone that is considered an authority figure, as opposed to an equal, this adds an extra element of pressure. No one wants to look bad in front of others as well as feel inferior to those we look up to. Adolf Eichmann did terrible things while he was with the Nazi organization, but he was surrounded by higher ranking officials who expected him to do a certain job and do it well. This to me is the same as Diane Nash being afraid of letting her peers and those she respected and looked up to down.

I agree a lot with what Joe is saying. I think as far as Megan’s Law goes, and things of this nature, that in the world that we live in today technologies and innovations, like the website, are intended to be very helpful things. But unfortunately sometimes the public turns them into negative devices. These people have committed terrible acts and even though they have served their time in the judicial system, they should still be considered a threat. I also agree that in a case such as this or really any topic there usually isn’t hatred toward a leader for having their own thoughts and opinions. But like Joe said, many times people really only focus on one or two subjects and that is how they vote. Lastly, when it comes to dealing with being hated for having a certain opinion on a topic. I would rather that the leader sticks to their guns, just as long as they are doing it for the good of those around them. Leaders such as politicians need to be firm on what they believe is best for the group and not just a few people. So if they face some opposition along the way I would rather see someone who is strong with their convictions and beliefs.

Re: Leaders and Hatred by Edward FuhrmanEdward Fuhrman, 26 Jun 2009 23:43

I think that around that time period it was really easy for a ruler’s ego and emotions to affect their ability to make moral decisions. The main reason is that in cases where groups are ruled by one ruler, instead of some sort of democracy, there really isn’t ever someone there to keep them in check. Yes, usually they have advisors and people around them that are suppose to help them make the right decision, but like we discussed in class, those people are usually only out for what is best for themselves. In the case of Henry, even if he made the decision because of his ego, no one was going to stand up to him and tell him that he wasn’t doing the right thing because they were all afraid of him. It kind of relates to the old saying “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men (Bishop Mandell Creighton)." Mindy makes some great points about the difference between leaders and rulers. I think that a lot of the leaders that we looked at in class were fighting for something that they cared deeply about, and surrounded themselves with people who had similar beliefs and passions. Rulers like Henry are just out for power and possession.

Re: Leadership and Egos by Edward FuhrmanEdward Fuhrman, 25 Jun 2009 03:37

I agree with your assessment, Shane. I think Jameson's comparison of the different types of followers talked about in the Navy presentation with our three models of leadership in class is insightful.

One point I wanted to add to Jameson's analysis: Another thing that distinguishes "effective" followers from the other types of followers, aside from their dedication to a common cause, is their willingness to criticize (constructively) their leadership. In "alienated" relations between leaders and followers, or fearful relations, there is no room to criticize, as the followers either feel like they can have no impact on the leaders, or they are too fearful of the consequences of openly disagreeing with their leaders. This potentially critical relationship between leaders and followers is similar to the idea that Joe highlights in the post directly below this one about knowing how to "disagree agreeably." Such disagreement is only possible on the background assumption of mutual trust.

The Greeks had a term for the type of criticism that a follower must bring to bear upon his/her leaders: "parrhesia," which roughly translates as "frankness" or "courageous speech." (Some people translate it as "fearless speech"—but I think that's perhaps too loose of a translation.) Any ruler or leader that punishes followers for their "parrhesia" runs the risk of surrounding himself with flatterers, and he/she thus never hears the truth. I think this lack of frankness is one of the things going on in that first scene of Henry V. What do you all think?

I am really impressed by Jameson's comparison of the ideas in the slides to the topics we discussed in class. I hadn't even thought of it in that sense, but I comlpetely agree with his assessment. I think it makes the idea of being a follower to be a leader easier to understand.

I had a similar thought. I wouldn't necessarily call Henry a leader, but more of a ruler. To me there's a difference between the both (leader /ruler). A leader's actions may be more compromising than a ruler. A may listen to both sides, weigh the consequences, and think of how his actions would effect others. A ruler to me is more dictating and powerful, as Machiavelli states "full of prowess". A leader has enough will power to be put in that position - Diane Nash is a great example. A ruler, like Henry, takes the power and is struggling at all times to keep it. Ego between the two could be of equal size when it come to confidence and ability but their intentions and the means by which they take to control their situations are different. Jameson's question about leaders putting their emotions before their duties can be ego driven. In the "Beyond Charisma" article its said that a leader needs to be 'passionate'. It also says that "extraordinary emotions motivate and provoke extraordinary behaviors". Henry was very emotional, he was planning a war to overthrow a strong country and gain more power while keeping his land safe from the Scots. Diane Nash was fighting for civil rights and going up against a strong government and potential violence.

Re: Leadership and Egos by Mindy DibertMindy Dibert, 24 Jun 2009 18:52

When i did the reading last night it occurred to me that a big factor in leaders and how they lead depends a lot on their ego. When Henry the fifth found out that the Dauphin calls him immature and mocks him, Henry the fifth seems to have his mind made up that he wants to wage war. He didn't want to let the Frenchman get the last laugh by sending gifts his way so Henry speaks of how he is going to take mothers from their sons, and knock castles down. He reacted very strongly to the Dauphins message which seems to show that Henry may let his ego go ahead of his leadership duties. Do you guys agree? If you do, do you also think that this is a common problem when it comes to leaders and putting their emotions before their duties?

Leadership and Egos by Jameson LJameson L, 24 Jun 2009 11:25

I think this goes against Kantian Morality, as you are assuming they're going to continue their behavior, and we monitor these individuals closely because we feel we know what is right for them and the community. I think it is breach of the constitution, however, I'm not agreeing we don't observe Megan's Law. I think because of the stipulation that they broke laws and have committed such a crime, they have also lost certain freedoms and chances they once had. I don't think it's fair to humiliate them, however, protection must come at that cost. I think that cost is, because of the severity of their actions, their jail sentence is extended into a probation of being monitored by the website. It is not fair, but it is what the public has created it to be.

I don't think people hate leaders because of this, but then again, it's reasons like this that we vote on our leaders. Perhaps I stand out when I say sometimes, it's unfortunate that people vote solely on items like this, however, because we live in this country, it's their free choice to do so. I think people leading while being hated is like bearing with circumstances and continuing on. It's akin to hiking in a hail storm. Assuming you know where you want to go, you have the choice to keep going. Yes, it's going to suck, and there's going to be great opposition, but you can still get where you're going. Thoughts?

Re: Leaders and Hatred by Joe MosesJoe Moses, 24 Jun 2009 06:06

Note in slide 3: "Know how an effective leader encourages correct behavior, suppresses fear, and attends to a subordinate's needs." Suppresses Fear. The recognition that fear is maintained is key in developing leaders and followers. Diane Nash may have been a good follower unknowingly, because of the meetings she attended, and the interest she had in her cause.

Most of the key points had mentioned key qualities of followership like being approachable, disagreeing agreeably, self-management and tact. These things seem to be things we have observed from some of our class examples. I think Plenty Coups is a perfect example of disagreeing agreeably. Because his methods of 'saving' his people are still being debated, it seems the argument has come down to whether or not he did more than Sitting Bull in terms of actual preservation of his people. The fact that he worked an agreement out with the government and still was able to keep some of his peoples traditions intact leads me to believe that disagreeing agreeably, in the face of what is considered the failure of his people, would have been something he did. He seemed to have said both yes and no, which is why I think there is so much to discuss about his actions.

Tom, I think you're right in the sense that most people fall through cracks and are not supported. I think that people create a sense of fear from the government and constantly raise it as unfairness. Most of the time, those people are either paranoid, or have legitimate reason to worry, but it's because of their actions. I don't think there is any actual reason for the government to use fear as a domination over citizens… Here in the US, we've got such a large expanse and so many people that a system like machiavellian fear and love wouldn't be affective, which is why we use democracy, as flawed and unforgiving as it my seem from time to time, to control what happens. We elect our own leaders and for the most part, they do their job. No one loves the U.S. government, or at least not because they're scared of what it will do to them.

Also, I don't think Kant would say that any of Machiavelli's ideas would be worth the grief you'd create. A lot of the things said, especially crushing your enemies relies on what we would consider a prediction, or at least thinking we have the best interest of the people, and in turn, the nobles as well. But Kant's idea of 'actions not consequences' obviously takes the opposite stance. Personally, I don't like either view, but you have to start somewhere.

One thing about that presentation that stood out to me was the one slide, i think it was 6, that named the different type of followers. In class we talk about followers not really realizing that there are different types of followers like the slide said, sheep, effective followers, alienated followers, ect. The sheep are the kind of followers that depend on the "shepherd" and look for guidance because without the shepherd the sheep would not know where to go. I compare the sheep type of followers to the crow tribe, with their leader being plenty coups. The tribe had to look to plenty coup for guidance and would have had a very hard time without him as their leader. The effective followers relate to the students that followed Jim Lawson and did the freedom rides and sit ins. They seem to be effective because they share a common goal with the leader and are willing to do what they are told to be able to achieve that goal. The alienated followers seem to relate to the kind of followers that Machiavelli speaks of. They are not treated as individuals but rather as a whole so individually they are alienated. So even though in those different situations they are all followers, they are all very different types.

All the talk in class today about leading and following reminded me of a concept the Navy taught me in a Naval Science class I took recently. The concept is that in order to be a good leader you must be a good follower. The Navy's thought process behind this is that the traits of a good leader are very similar to those of a good follower. I have included a link to a Powerpoint many NROTC instructors use when teaching this concept. The first half of the Powerpoint is about followership/leadership. The rest covers senior-subordinate relationship. I'm curious to hear what your opinions are of this concept.

http://www.unm.edu/~nrotc/ns407/NS407%20Spring05/AZ05.Followership%20and%20Loyalty.ppt

We have discussed how leaders control through fear and establish love from their followers or subjects, but what happens when a leader is hated? This idea came up in a previous thread and I found it very interesting. Machiavelli believes that leaders can easily avoid being hated by their populace by ruling with a conscious cruelty - meaning that they are cruel but not to the point of abuse. I agree with this idea and think that a leader should definitely rule with a heavy hand but it should be in response to what the populace deems as important. For instance, in America sexual offenders are made to register and their location can be viewed on a map online (Megan's Law). Some believe that this is in violation of the 8th Amendment and cruel punishment because these criminals have already served their debt to society in jail etc. But - the public believes that these criminals should be monitored due to the severity of their crimes and the probability of recidivism. Making them register can be seen as cruel but the public sees this as a necessary evil to protect the members of society.

I would like to see what others think about this idea of hating our leaders and how they are able to lead while being hated.

Leaders and Hatred by Thomas GreyThomas Grey, 23 Jun 2009 18:12

Machiavelli believes that all enemies should be abolished when a new ruler comes into power - to establish dominance and send a message of aggression. I disagree with the fact that the US government operates and thrives off of fear. I also do not believe that the government threatens us with threats of jail or death. When people commit crimes, they are well aware of the repercussions of their actions. Once a person is arrested, they are tried by a jury of their peers and not just sent to the gallows. However, this system is flawed and trials are not always fair but, the system was created to maintain justice within the nation.

I do not believe that the US government uses fear as a means of creating love for the citizens. In America I feel that most people fall through the cracks and are not supported entirely by the system. There are many problems in the nation, as there are in most, and I do not believe ANYONE loves the government out of fear of the repercussions. I feel that the US presence in the middle east has created more hatred than love. The enemies of the US do not fear the government but instead hate the essence of its existence. Machiavelli believes that hatred is the worst response that a leader could have with the public and its followers, and this is what the US government has done.

That's actually a good connection that we can make from Machiavelli to modern day situations. Like you said there are ways to be loved by reaching out to countries, and ways to be feared by building up defense and keeping other countries somewhat scared. Like Machiavelli says there should be a balance and what he says really seems to be relevant, at least if you sift through all the murder and other extreme things he says. I tend to agree with him when he says if you have to choose one that it is better to be feared than loved especially if we are relating it to the stances that different countries make. I was told by my history teacher in high school that countries don't have friends or enemies, they have interests, which would make me think I would rather be feared than loved by other countries. If, by this statement, a country doesn't really have a true ally, then I would choose to be feared because it seems you cant trust anyone so you must "stick to your guns." That quote may or may not even be accurate but it seems to agree with what Machiavelli thought of relationships with people, that there were no true friends. So it seems as crazy as some of his statements were that many of them share the same beliefs that some of us have today. I was curious to see what people agree at all, or if some of you think that being loved is better.

I totally agree that our government works off of the basis of fear. Not only for defense and to keep our enemies in check, but also to reestablish their dominance over its citizens and the rest of the world. People do not commit crimes because of the fear that the government will throw them in jail or put them to death.
I think the idea of fear becomes a little different in our society now a days though. Our leaders want us to love them so that they get reelected. They use fear against the outside and the small minorities of criminals within so that we in turn love them for it. Our leaders might give the impression that they are loving leaders, but this is only a means to keep themselves in office. Behind the scenes they are using fear through military might and politics to keep themselves and our country ahead in the world, which in the end I guess does make us love them. We can take the war in Iraq as an example of our leaders using fear to make us love them. They create fear in the public eyes showing us that terrorist threats are eminent and that we need to go to war. They create fear in the middle-eastern countries by showing our military greatest. The oil prices go down, and their citizens (us) can still drive our big gas guzzling cars. We love them for this and they reestablish themselves as our leaders.
I think our government uses fear as a means for us to love them.

I don't think that Jared's writing assignments or trips to the doctor's office for example can be compared across the board because we can not see imminent harm in what they inform us. For example, as college students writing 3 pages for a discussion paper does not cause us physical harm and at the end of the day I do not believe that anyone could see anything wrong with the assignment. I personally look to validate every assignment that I am given by a professor or instructor because at the end of the day I am paying for them to teach me and if I do not believe its something beneficial then I speak up. Or simply if I feel that they have failed to provide us with a beneficial piece of work I speak up. For example, I did not like the fact that Jared was giving us assignments with no grading rubric and thus left the graded material up to his personal discretion for which we has no recourse because nothing was in writing so I told him and he provided us with a rubric. When going to the doctor's I never take word for word what they tell me to do without researching first and asking several questions simply because of personal experience and like ordinary citizens they are only human. At the very least I think that it simply goes back to nature vs nuture. There are some who listen without contest and there are others like myself who evaluate the situation first before acting. I personally know more people who think for themselves first and then react as opposed to just taking what they are being told word for word. I think a more correct statement would address the some of the people as opposed to the whole because not everything is obedient upon command.

page 1123...next »
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License