"Philosophies of leadership are determined by beliefs about human nature."
This quote could be interpreted differently by many people, but I personally believe that it has to do with the scenario that leaders and people are presented with. Depending on a person's current living conditions, morals, etc, some parts of their human nature may act more dominantly over other parts. If you're presented with a situation in which you have no resources, you're starving, thirsty, and dying, you're going to act completely differently and let different parts of your subconscious make your decisions for you if you were instead in a situation where you had a surplus of food, water, resources, money, etc. A leader has to accommodate for these different scenarios by applying different ideas and methods to deal with them. If a leader thinks that the people that they are ruling are nice, own a surplus of resources, and seem to have very little issue with everyday life, he will rule his people in a way that complements this surplus; they might raise taxes slightly to ensure that the wealth spreads throughout the kingdom. The ruler might create a more "loose" law system, because the ruler knows that the people are good at heart. This would be completely different if it was a ruler ruling a kingdom which was experiencing an opposite scenario. If the people were living in a dire situation where there was a scarcity of food, water, shelter, etc, the ruler would apply completely different tactics to rule the kingdom/state/whichever. You would have to tighten the law and court system, because a leader would have to assume that human nature would lead people to steal from each other, hurt each other, maybe even go as far as kill one another.
So, how could this be explained in slightly simpler terms? Well, imagine your talking to a 5th grader. Someone who doesn't really have a grasp on the reality of the world, but is slowly starting to understand it; what would you say? Using examples along the lines of parents, teachers, school, etc, it'd go something like this: The way a teacher would lead and instruct a class would depend on how old the class is, or the history of their behavior. If they're a young class, the teacher will want to be fun, ecstatic, and have the utmost amount of patience. Yet is the class is older, but is known to be loud, some kids are obnoxious, and the class can overall be a disaster, a teacher will have to be strict, cunning, and quick at making decisions that will benefit the rest of the class.
As John Locke, I would have to agree with this thought. A leader should have an understanding of human nature, how it works, and how it should be applied to laws and codes of leadership. Human nature greatly affects what people perceive as proper natural rights, and we all know that a leader should be someone who properly protects the natural rights of his people. If a leader correctly understands human nature and knows how to apply it to how he leads, then he will become a great leader. On the flip side, if a leader doesn't understand human nature, or doesn't know how to use knowledge about human nature in his ruling, then he won't have an understanding about natural rights. If this occurs, then the leader won't be able to properly protect those natural rights, and then should be overthrown and removed from office by the people under that leader.
"The governed have a responsibility for their governance."
We, living in a democratic society, might not realize how much a government relies on its people to properly run. Although the people under the government might think it has total power (or at least has a lot of power), this isn't exactly true. The people under a government have a lot of power; Perhaps more power than the government itself. In reality, a government cannot succeed without help from its people. If everybody under a government follows laws, acts maturely, doesn't rebel, and overall enjoys/agrees with the way the government is currently running the state, then the people have done their job; their government can now be seen as successful as it can run without much interference. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case; there is always a rebel. If the governed do not follow the laws, act wild and pay no heed to the rules and leadership that the government offers, then the government will fall. The government cannot be successful if the people they are ruling over pay no heed to the laws and structure that the government has offered. Without this mutual agreement, this political handshake of trust and respect, any and all governments will fall if their people do not act properly.
This idea seems slightly complex, so I'll revisit the 5th grader idea. In sports, people obtain a great idea of how teamwork works, and that everything on a team can't constantly be about a single person. The team has to work as a single unit; a machine. If they fail to do this, the team falls apart and loses every game they play. In order to become a team and truly work as a squad, you have to listen to your leader, your government; your coach. Your coach is the one that calls the shots, tells you your roll in the game, and gives you tips and techniques to become a better player and contribute more to the team. If everybody listens to the coach, then the team will be successful. If nobody or a group of the players don't listen to the coach this leads to a lack of structure, and then the entire team ends up out of sync. Game over.
As Locke, I believe in this philosophy, but I believe it shouldn't be difficult to create a consensus between the people and the government. Human nature leads people to act in an altruistic manner; it persuades them to do good things just for the sake of being good. Now if the people are good, and the government does a good enough job at protecting natural rights, a mutual agreement should be easy to reach between the two parties. This would lead to very little dispute between the two and very little rebellion. All of this added up means that the governed are doing their job appropriately, so a government ruling over them can take care of business and do the best that they can do rule the state.
"Human Nature does not determine our actions,: it inclines us towards us towards certain actions."
This idea is short, sweet, but very complex and deep. Many of us think that human nature is something that defines us; they think it is something that makes us who we are and who we are going to become. Many philosophers ideas make it sound like this as well. They make it sound like all humans are kind and generous at heart, or that everybody is cruel and will do anything to benefit themselves. This isn't the case. Human nature doesn't define who we become; it just persuades us in certain directions. My altruistic perspective on human life makes it sound like I expect all people to be good and do good things just for the sake of doing them; this is not what I meant. I do believe that there is an altruistic aspect to every person on this planet, and I also believe that it plays a huge part in deciding who they become. Overall, though, it doesn't define them. This would go the same for Hobbes' perspective on human nature as well. He believes that people would do anything to survive, and are cruel enough to do evil things as long as it gives a personal benefit. This isn't true; this idea of human nature just means that it persuades people to do bad things. That these ideas of killing people for personal gain or stealing from people are from their human nature, but it is not an absolute; the person has a choice of whether or not they will partake in the action.
Lets revisit the 5th grader perspective. An easier way to explain this idea would be this: A classroom. A class is always full of outside pressure, ideas, and people. We all know that when your a kid, there is a certain way that all the cool kids "act"; it may not be smart, it might be completely stupid, but all the cool kids are doing it. In order for you to be one of those kids, to truly be seen as "cool" and "popular", you have to act like those kids. Yet just because these kids act like they do, just because you want to be one of those popular kids, it doesn't mean you have to be like them. You can be your own person, and travel on a separate path than everybody else, and in the end you can still be a cool kid. Everybody has the opportunity to go on their own unique path. Some just decide not to take it.
As Locke, I would have to completely agree with this idea. I don't expect everyone to act like a perfect little angel, doing good deeds around the neighborhood just because I said they should. I expect people to go on their own paths, but to keep in mind that they should be doing good things and thinking about good deeds so they can be successful in life. I want everyone to be different; I want to see different personalities. Yet through all of this, human nature will cause you to keep thinking of those good things that you can do. A person's own subconscious will always remind them of that extra step they can take to be a good person and to do good things. It's all a matter of whether you decide to travel down that path or not.
Locke, signing out.
No comments:
Post a Comment