"re-worked" thesis

so this is what i "want to argue"

Whether the society's moral conscience is held more powerfully by the people or the leader depends on the amount of control that the government holds and consequently allows its people to hold.

The more say that people have in the government, the more that the conscience of the people will be reflected in the laws of the society. Therefore, the people will be more willing to abide by those laws, even if the choice that they advocated at first didn't become the actual law. Conflicts, especially questions regarding moral issues, help create this kind of situation because they make the opportunity for people to make decisions about what they believe, what they would like their society to deem as acceptable or not, etc. An issue comes up, people advocate one side or the other, and one side or the other wins (theoretically, a law is made supporting the "winning side"). When this decision is made by the majority, everyone pretty much agrees to follow the law because they see that it's a fair system. They had a say, but it's not what the majority wanted. Now, there are of course people who ardently disagree with certain laws, governmental policies, but it's rare that revolutions start all over the country because someone wasn't pleased with a court decision (this would mean that the majority won only by a little, maybe). The unlikelihood of something like this happening is evidence that people, for the most part, go along with the majority - because of the innate tendency to conform; because we need to belong to the "group."

I'm basically back to my same because, but hopefully my thoughts are a little clearer. At least they're clearer to me. That's a start.

evidence, claims, reasoning, uh.. what?

Conflict plays an important role in the defining of a society's conscience because it brings up the opportunity for different options to be taken. We are provided with certain alternatives to choose from by our leaders and whether "good" or "bad," we choose a side and therefore define the conscience of our society as a whole. And in an ideal situation, because the leader is ultimately in accord with what the majority wants, the factor of the leader having more or less power over the society's conscience than the people themselves is no longer a valid, arguable point. Whichever side the majority picks becomes "good." This is so because of the innate tendency to conform to a society's determined moral code/set of values; because of the penchant for seeking acceptance from the "big group."

www.philosophypages.com

Evidence #1: "The distinction between virtue and vice belongs only to the law of opinion or reputation and is sanctioned only by the praise or blame of others. Although public opinion always praises the virtuous, the standards of virtue and vice vary widely among different cultures." (Locke on Morality)

Claim #1: People are always seeking acceptance - even in making the most important moral decisions. And therefore, the definitions of words such as "virtuous" and "immoral" are ever-changing and vary among different societies.

Reasoning #1 (Generalization): A lot of times, people "know" what is right and wrong simply by the definition that their society places on the issues. People mostly agree that drug use is a bad thing because that's what the laws say - that's what the general consensus is now. But during the 1960's, a hippie generation rose up and made drugs a "normal" thing, at least if you were a part of the movement. The line between "right" and "wrong" is drawn by the standards of the general current opinion or reputation of the sector of society in which you live.

Evidence #2: "Good and evil generally are to be considered nothing more than tendencies to produce pleasure and pain, and moral good and evil are nothing other than special instances of this association, the reward and punishment artificially annexed by a powerful legislator as the consequences that follow from human actions by virtue of their conformity with or difference from the dictates of moral law." (Locke on Action) OR "A closely related idea is that violations of convention elicit some kind of sanction, such as tangible punishment or, more commonly, negative reactive attitudes. Lewis emphasizes the self-perpetuating character of convention: one conforms because it is in one's interest to conform, given that others conform. But, the argument goes, this emphasis overlooks a distinct enforcement mechanism: non-conformity elicits some kind of sanction from other people." (Lewishttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/convention/)

Claim #2: The people who stray from the generally-accepted values of a society are punished because essentially, they aren't conforming to the "norm." The legislator that punishes is only acting as an extension of the general population; an extension that has authority.

Reasoning #2 (): When a conflict occurs and someone (or a small faction of people) decide to go against the grain, they are often met with great opposition, no matter what may truly be right or wrong. A lot of times, they are looked back upon, generations later, and recognized for their "radical" then, but now "correct" ideas. Examples of this: Civil Rights Movement, Women's Rights Movement, even Joan of Arc! People at first were not open to these revolutionary events/people that lead them, but now, if anyone considers women or blacks inferior, they are seen as old-fashioned at best and prejudiced and bigoted at worst.

Evidence #3: "Pre-existing convention is so overwhelmingly salient that agents expect one another to abide by it, an expectation which furnishes reason to conform." (Lewis) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/convention/

Claim #3: The desire for acceptance works in a cycle of sorts - the expectations people have of each other continually reinforce the necessity of the actions they take.

Reasoning #3 (cause and effect): Certain conventions are so deeply-set in the morals of a society that everyone expects everyone else to follow them. The expectations people have about others' opinions concerning an issue directly cause a ramification of that belief.

"It's all so... CONVOLUTED..." she said

things to put together:

• i think
• because
• a clear indication to which prompt i'm writing about
• a clear answer to thesis question

Thesis Q.

Why does conflict play such an essential role in defining the conscience of a society and its leaders? How do the different roles played by the leaders and followers affect conflict and therefore the conscience of the civilization?

A.

I think conflict plays an important role in the defining of a society's conscience because it brings up the opportunity for different options to be taken. We are given choices to make, and whether "good" or "bad," we choose a side and therefore define the conscience of our society as a whole. This is so because in order for people to define their needs and wants, it's necessary that they first be exposed to real alternatives. The position of the leader is to provide these and then mediate when people start taking sides.

another approach? eh

Conflict produces consciousness and therefore helps us define a society's conscience. We are forced to listen up, care, and take a stand - or not, which would be "taking a stand" as well. This is so because in order for people to define their needs and wants, it's necessary that they first be exposed to real alternatives. The position of the leader is to provide these, and then mediate when people start taking sides.

Is this clear enough? Does it make any sense? haha, or maybe it's too simple..

Thesis-ing

Why does conflict play such an essential role in defining the conscienceof a society and its leaders? How do the different roles played by theleaders and followers affect conflict and therefore the conscience of the civilization?

1. it causes different ideas to come up, different options which make people look to themselves and ask, "what do I want?" *presidential elections, different "controversial issues"*
2. it causes factions, which leaders have to deal with to come to a compromise *opposing political parties, different lobbyist groups, special interests groups, conscientious objectors, counterculture of 60's*
3. it makes the society have to work as an entire group, even if it's just people working to oppose each other *mostly the idea of the group focusing in on one topic whichever sides people choose (or not choose)*
4. it causes leaders to have to make decisions about their own motives and desires, and how much of their personal will they impose upon the followers *LBJ deciding to go on with the Vietnam War, Nixon's "peace with honor"/widening scope of war, 60's conflicts, civil rights movement facing opposition from governors, mayors, etc esp. in the South..*
5. it helps the society define the guidelines of 'who controls what?' *three branches of gvt vs. monarchies, constitutional monarchies*

Whenever a society defines and alters its unique sense of conscience, conflict plays an essential role. It acts as a catalytic agent, causing different ideas to manifest, different options to become available, and thus pushing people to decide what their moral boundaries are individually as well as a whole. And because of the individuality that conflicts often highlight, leaders are usually put in the position to facilitate and consequently decide as well how much of their personal motives they allow to affect their role of an "objective leader." Conflict helps us define who we are, what we believe, and how much we are in tune with our leaders in those beliefs.

Research on COnflict

http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hobmoral.htm
Hobbes says that governments have been "foisted upon people by force and fraud, not by collective agreement." But he also says "Liberty is freedom of motion, and I am free to move whichever way I wish, unless I am literally enchained. If I yield to threats of violence, that is my choice, for physically I could have done otherwise. If I obey the sovereign for fear of punishment or in fear of the state of nature, then that is equally my choice. Such obedience then comes, for Hobbes, to constitute a promise that I will continue to obey." Aren't those contradictory statements? What is he really saying about leadership/government?

One of his main arguments is that everyone is looking out for themselves. That everyone has a right to do whatever he needs to safeguard himself.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hegelsoc.htm#H5
Thus, ethical life is permeated with both objectivity and subjectivity: regarded objectively it is the state and its institutions, whose force (unlike abstract right) depends entirely on the self-consciousness of citizens, on their subjective freedom; regarded subjectively it is the ethical will of the individual which (unlike the moral will) is aware of objective duties that express one's inner sense of universality. The rationality of the ethical order of society is thus constituted in the synthesis of the concept of the will, both as universal and as particular, with its embodiment in institutional life.
The synthesis of ethical life means that individuals not only act in conformity with the ethical good but that they recognize the authority of ethical laws. This authority is not something alien to individuals since they are linked to the ethical order through a strong identification which Hegel says "is more like an identity than even the relation of faith or trust" (¶ 147). The knowledge of how the laws and institutions of society are binding on the will of individuals entails a "doctrine of duties." In duty the individual finds liberation both from dependence on mere natural impulse, which may or may not motivate ethical actions, and from indeterminate subjectivity which cannot produce a clear view of proper action. "In duty the individual acquires his substantive freedom" (¶ 149). In the performance of duty the individual exhibits virtue when the ethical order is reflected in his or her character, and when this is done by simple conformity with one's duties it is rectitude. When individuals are simply identified with the actual ethical order such that their ethical practices are habitual and second nature, ethical life appears in their general mode of conduct as custom (Sitten). Thus, the ethical order manifests its right and validity vis-à-vis individuals. In duty "the self-will of the individual vanishes together with his private conscience which had claimed independence and opposed itself to the ethical substance. For when his character is ethical, he recognizes as the end which moves him to act the universal which is itself unmoved but is disclosed in its specific determinations as rationality actualized. He knows that his own dignity and the whole stability of his particular ends are grounded in this same universal, and it is therein that he actually attains these" (¶ 152). However, this does not deny the right of subjectivity, i.e., the right of individuals to be satisfied in their particular pursuits and free activity; but this right is realized only in belonging to an objective ethical order. The "bond of duty" will be seen as a restriction on the particular individual only if the self-will of subjective freedom is considered in the abstract, apart from an ethical order (as is the case for both Abstract Right and Morality). "Hence, in this identity of the universal will with the particular will, right and duty coalesce, and by being in the ethical order a man has rights in so far as he has duties, and duties in so far as he has rights" (¶ 155).

http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/tolerati.htm#H5
Moral toleration emphasizes a moral commitment to the value of autonomy. While moral toleration is about relations between agents, political toleration is about restraint of political power. The modern liberal state is usually not thought to be a moral agent. Rather, the state is supposed to be something like a third party referee: it is not thought to be one of the parties engaged directly in the process of judgment and negation. Political toleration is thus an ideal that holds that the political referee should be impartial and unbiased. The term toleration has been used, since Locke, in this political context to describe a principle of state neutrality. The connection between moral and political toleration can be understood in terms of the history of the pre-modern era when the state was an agent—a monarch, for example—who had particular judgments and the power to negate. As the idea of the state has evolved since the 17th Century toward liberal democratic notions of self-government and civil rights, the notion of political toleration has evolved to mean something like state indifference. Political toleration is now thought to entail respect for privacy, separation of church and state, and a general respect for human rights.

The difficulty is that the idea of state neutrality can become paradoxical: a state that is neutral about everything will undermine its own existence.

"Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/m/mead.htm
There are two models of consensus-conflict relation in Mead's analysis of social relations. These may be schematized as follows:
Intra-Group Consensus — Extra-Group Conflict
Intra-Group Conflict — Extra-Group Consensus
In the first model, the members of a given group are united in opposition to another group which is characterized as the "common enemy" of all members of the first group. Mead points out that the idea of a common enemy is central in much of human social organization and that it is frequently the major reference-point of intra-group consensus. For example, a great many human organizations derive their raison d'etre and their sense of solidarity from the existence (or putative existence) of the "enemy" (communists, atheists, infidels, fascist pigs, religious "fanatics," liberals, conservatives, or whatever). The generalized other of such an organization is formed in opposition to the generalized other of the enemy. The individual is "with" the members of her group and "against" members of the enemy group.

Sketching on Notes (not really)

So conscience is something that we apply to our daily lives in order to make decisions about what is "right" and "wrong." This varies from person to person and from a group of people to another. However, it needs to be guided, in a way. People need to be given choices to begin with, so that their conscience can have something to decide and therefore define their boundaries, I guess. A society, ideally, would provide these choices. Although there are certain deep, unshakable (mm not the word I wanted, but oh well) guidelines that I think all humans "start out" with, so to speak, like the feeling you get when you witness something "bad" happening. Guilt, apprehension, fear, embarressment... - I think we all have (or had at one time) these gut feelings, but unfortunately, a lot of time some or all of these gut feelings that are supposed to guide us are supressed or conditioned to be ignored. Especially now, we are so freely exposed to so many things considered (or used to be considered) taboo and at such a young age, too. Doesn't this dull whatever reacts to these things? The gut feelings are there and are supposed to be shocking so that they make us STOP and go, "wait a minute, woah. I don't think I'm supposed to feel this way." But these feelings are dulled because of overuse. Alright, interesting/obvious point I guess, but let's get back on track.
Is society in general causing this "dulling", or does it have more to do with the leaders (I realize that I failed to get back on track)? Well, aren't the leaders from the society and of the society? In America, the president has to have been born here to even be considered a candidate, in countries governed by the monarchy this also is true because obviously, the ruler is a descendant of a long line of people that have lived and died in that country, even in totalitarian governments the ruler that rises up is from the country or at least shares the citizens' sentiments (at least to begin with). I guess the exception in this case would be colonies owned by other countries, but those are often considered an extension of the leader's country or just fail because the natives revolt against that foreign leader... So I guess I'm coming back to the point that leaders must have the same general interests (personal, economical, political) as most of the population they lead. So is it really a question of "who has more power" over the society's conscience? Because ideally, the leader should have a similar conscience as the rest of the society, or else the civilization falls apart - even in Lord of the Flies, many of the boys had the same desires as Jack, no matter how "bad" they may have been. That's why he had so much power. Because they wanted to have fun, and he wanted to have fun, and then he made it happen for everyone. Yay. If Jack's tribe had had enough people like Samanderic who cringed at hunting humans and such, they probably wouldn't have "had to" join and probably could've stayed with Ralph. AND, even if a bunch of dissenters had joined, it still wouldn't have worked, because people get sick of doing things they hate after a while. They would've revolted against Jack. Unless I guess they changed... Okay, well that still would make sense, because then, the leader and followers have the same general desire!!! I feel like I'm on to something but at the same time feeling really lost, like way out in the middle of nowhere and jumping up and down, like "I get it! I get it!" and then, "wait, what? What is this place??" Hmm. Maybe I should outline.

Started out with:
Conscience is innate, but varies. It can also be changed.
Ended up:

• Leaders and their followers must have similar interests and therefore conscience.
• They usually do, unless it's a society tick-tocking, about to fall apart anyways.
• The conscience of each civilization is different, like different individuals want different things.
• The gut feelings people have (er... start out with) are all the same at first, but change according to experiences.

Geez I am SO CONFUSEd. I feel like I'm just putting certain meanings to words that don't actually mean that meaning and repeating the same things over and over again, like meaning meaning meaning. HELP- IS ANYONE THERE?

Notes on Conscience

CONSCIENCE. what is it??

Conscience and Other Virtues: From Bonaventure to MacIntyre. By Douglas C. Langston.
^ an article (or perhaps a book review) by Rory Fox

• Conscience itself, according to most scholastic writers, was to be thought of as ajudgement about the application of principles to concrete examples.
• Bonaventure: "Improving our reasoning processes or even our understanding of moral principleswould be just as likely to lead to development of greater sophistication in theapplication of conscience."
• For experience tohave value in shaping a conscience it must be validated by reasoning, otherwise it isliable to err and the only dynamism it will offer will be in terms of confusion andmisunderstanding.
• In general, scholastic writers viewed conscience as an intellectual, and to someextent volitional, process.
• With the reformation a very different model of conscience developed. i.e. Martin Luther (viewed conscience as a distinct faculty within human beings), Joseph Butler, Immanuel Kant
• It is this model that has come down to us in popular142 BOOK REVIEWSculture construing conscience as ‘a voice’ or ‘guide’ within us showing us the way toact and do what is right in each situation.
• having a relational existence in the nexus between reason, will and psychology. (...?!?)
• Notheory of conscience can afford to suggest that any and every feeling, view or reasonthat a person believes arises from their conscience is in fact a genuine andauthoritative utterance of conscience.
• conscience needs virtueethics in order to function properly. (Langston)
• Without virtue ethics conscience is blind, withvirtue ethics conscience has the wisdom of society on which to base its judgements andreasoning processes.

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/aristotl.htm#H6 (Aristotle on politics) (I think this would be a really good site for people doing prompt #2 - look at the Ethics section)

• The state in fact is no mere local union for the prevention of wrong doing, and the convenience of exchange. It is also no mere institution for the protection of goods and property. It is a genuine moral organization for advancing the development of humans.
• The classification of constitutions is based on the fact that government may be exercised either for the good of the governed or of the governing, and may be either concentrated in one person or shared by a few or by the many. There are thus three true forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and constitutional republic. The perverted forms of these are tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. The difference between the last two is not that democracy is a government of the many, and oligarchy of the few; instead, democracy is the state of the poor, and oligarchy of the rich. Considered in the abstract, these six states stand in the following order of preference: monarchy, aristocracy, constitutional republic, democracy, oligarchy, tyranny.
• But though with a perfect person monarchy would be the highest form of government, the absence of such people puts it practically out of consideration. Similarly, true aristocracy is hardly ever found in its uncorrupted form. It is in the constitution that the good person and the good citizen coincide. Ideal preferences aside, then, the constitutional republic is regarded as the best attainable form of government, especially as it secures that predominance of a large middle class, which is the chief basis of permanence in any state. With the spread of population, democracy is likely to become the general form of government.
• Law, for Aristotle, is the outward expression of the moral ideal without the bias of human feeling.
• Such education should not be left to private enterprise, but should be undertaken by the state. Indeed all true education is, as Plato saw, a training of our sympathies so that we may love and hate in a right manner.

Editorial - Leadership and Recent Controversies over Religious Liberty by Wallace L. Daniel

• The struggle for religious liberty and the rights of free consciencehad been a long, difficult, and momentous effort, whose history, Truettrecommended to his listeners, they should study. This struggle, at itscore, involved the clash between authoritarianism and individualism,between the demand for state conformity and the desire for"unrestricted religious liberty."
• He cited James Madison'sMemorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, that thegovernment must not "force a citizen to contribute three pence only ofhis property for the support of any one establishment" of a religiousorganization.26 The "payment of three pence" and freedom ofconscience, Justice Souter maintained, coufd not be separated, butwere part of the same constitutional principle.

Thesis Question

Why does conflict play such an essential role in defining the conscience
of a society and its leaders? How do the different roles played by the
leaders and followers affect conflict and therefore the conscience of the
civilization?

Conflict helps a society define its conscience because:

1. it causes different ideas to come up, different options which make people look to themselves and ask, "what do I want?"

- people must be able to make conscious decisions among real alternatives. so leaders have to work to provide those alternatives and avoid assuming brute power. wait, is a dictatorship with brute power not a leadership at all? because the people aren't being "lead" but... pushed? anyways... since everybody has to kind of decide - even deciding to not decide is a decision - and therefore define their standards of whatever the issue may be, the entire society is defining its own conscience, too. this would be assuming that people as a majority have more power over the conscience of a civilization rather than the leaders.

2. it causes factions, which leaders have to deal with to come to a compromise

- this idea puts the leaders in the position of facilitators. but as facilitators, they are not "perfect" in the sense that no leader could ever be completely impartial on an issue. because leaders are human as well, they have their own opinions and morals affecting the decisions they make as facilitators. a truly impartial one could never exist, because everyone has morals of some sort. so here, the leaders has a larger part in influencing the conscience of the society, if it is true that conflict helps us define our conscience.

3. it makes the society have to work as an entire group, even if it's just people working to oppose each other

- conflict focuses a society's energy into a single topic... okay actually, i'm not so sure about this one

4. it causes leaders to have to make decisions about their own motives and desires, and how much of their personal will they impose upon the followers

- so this is where the amount of influence should come from a leader in settling conflicts. of course, this is assuming that leaders do have power over the conscience of the society. a society which elects its leaders gives them the prerogative to "make the right decision" for them. because there are so many differing opinions, different options one could take on an issue, do many people have to "settle" when electing a leader? because it would be extremely rare that a leader has the exact same opinions and morals as a person choosing them... but then what about the case of dictatorships or monarchies, where leaders aren't chosen at all? WHEN WILL I STOP DILLY-DALLYING ABOUT THIS?

5. it helps the society define the guidelines of 'who controls what?'

- ultimately, is it the leaders with more power over the conscience of a civilization, or the general public?

going back to the prompt&Lord of the Flies...

How does a leader's conscience (or lack thereof) affect the shape of a civilization and each individual's conscience within it? Which has more power over people's conscience - the system of civilization itself or the people running it?

Philosophy I found:

• people provide the initiatives - leaders are only facilitators
• but people can only define their needs, goals, etc. once they have been exposed to alternatives
• leaders must "make conscious what lies unconscious among the followers"
• while they are "only facilitators," they do have a large effect on what the outcome of conflicts are because they have motives of their own
• society can't stay strong unless leaders are in tune with followers

Golding's philosophy:

• leaders can be "good" or "bad"
• at least in the short term, people will follow the brute, dictatorial leader (usually because they have to and also because people always want to conform)
• a heterogeneous society cannot exist without conscience, rules, order
• once conscience is eliminated and innocence is lost (?), people more readily commit acts of savagery

More Sketching... (thesis?)

Books used:

• Leadership James MacGregor Burns
• Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun James Robert Ph.D.

Notes and thoughts

Leadership book

Leaders do not shun conflict. they confront it, exploit it, ultimately embody it, they stand at points of contact amont latent conflict groups. so they're.. facilitators. how much of their personal influence are they able to use? how much do the followers buy of the leaders' opinions? The more homogeneous a group, the more the leader has to deal with other leaders of opposing groups. how does that change the balance? are the people better represented or worse? hmm. if "smaller" leaders arise out of homogeneous, that means less differing opinions and therefore stronger "factions." how does that change the question of conscience? does more diversity mean a shift in the conscience of the public as well? i guess for that to be true, we would have to assume that the public has more of a power over the conscience of a civilization rather than the leaders. the more heterogeneous the group, the more the leader must embrace competing interests and goals within their constituency. so in this case, the leader would most likely have to give in to more things that he doesn't necessarily advocate personally. which would mean that it is THIS kind of a society in which the actual public has more control over the conscience of the whole group. so we come back to the conclusion that leaders are (or should be) more facilitators than anything else. BUT, they can shape as well as express and mediate conflict. They can influence the intensity and scope of a conflict. Within limits, they can soften or sharpen demands and claims, amplify/mute the voice and pressure of certain groups. Conflict produces consciousness. in the fact that conflict often causes people to have to pick sides and decide what they want? But philosophers differ in opinion in answering the question, "consciousness of WHAT?" They differed in opinion as to the nature of the human needs. because leaders need to react to those needs. They agreed on the actual needs, but not how they are derived.

• Feuerbach: "humanity has real, solid needs derived from NATURE"
• Marx: "human consciousness = that of animals (which means there is no consciousness of the world as something objective and real apart from the animals' own needs and existence.) But human labor, rather than leading to direct satisfaction of a need, generates human consciousness and self-consciousness. so doing WORK in order to fulfill something other than an immediate, natural need sets us apart from other animals.
• Engel: railed at the "false consciousness" of feelings such as religion and nationalism
• Freud: focused mostly on the unconscious and said that it could be achieved through "psychic reality"
• Georges Sorel: "only through leadership and conflict (including "terrifying violence") could the working class become conscious of its true identity" could I relate this back to the 60's?? the Vietnam War? people witnessing terrifying violence and figuring out that that wasn't right and letting the leaders know what they thought. the protests, the hippies... that was America's identity of the time. at least a part of it. hm

"The first task of leadership is to bring to consciousness the
followers' sense of their own needs, values, and purposes..."

ex. the consciousness of an identity (sexual, communal, ethnic, class, national, ideological)

BRING to consciousness. so what is this?? it's the followers' needs and values and whatnot, but BROUGHT ABOUT by a leader? how do we know what's our own and what's the leader's? To what degree do leaders, through their command of personal influences, substitute their own motives and goals for those of thefollowers? what do they have to do? how do they differentiate between durable/valid and false/transient voices? leaders with RELEVANT goals and motives of their own respond to followers' needs, wants, and goals in such a way as to meet those motivations and to bring changes consonant with those of both leaders and followers with values of both.

Attila the Hun book - "The Art of Delegation"

-nation can't prevail as a dominant power if leadership is contained to a single person.

-leaders cannot accomplish for followers what the masses are not willing to accomplish themselves. ex. even with communist regimes, in the beginning, people follow willingly. they desire whatever their leaders are promising them - the pride, the nationalism, the 5year plans that are surely going to be a success.. basically, the leader andfollowers have to be in tune with one another.

Prompt #1 (04/14/08)

Books used:

• Leadership by James MacGregor Burns (pgs. 36~40)
• The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (index)

Notes and thoughts on conscience and conflict (in the Leadership book) -

Leaders should be working for the needs of the followers, so people provide the initiatives. And therefore only the followers themselves can ultimately define their own true needs. does this relate back to the conscience of a society? And the people can only define their own needs after being exposed to alternatives. There must be a conscious choice among real alternatives. so a totaliarian government doesn't fit this definition. so... in that type of gvt, the leaders' conscience, or lact thereof, overrides everything else. Hence, leadership assumes competition and conflict, and brute power denies that. similiar to previous post... "Conflict motivates people" (prompt #2?) Leadership acts as an inciting and triggering force in the conversion of conflicting demands, values, and goals into significant behavior. in balancing out what the people want/not want, the leaders are causing... something. Since leaders have an interest of their own, whether opportunistic or idealistic or both, in expressing and exploiting the followers' wants, needs, and aspirations, they act as catalytic agents in arousing followers' consciousness. so they cause the people to become conscious. of what? and isn't this talking about an ideal leader? "If a fight starts, watch the crowd, because the crowd plays the decisive role." isn't this exactly the opposite of the last sentence? well maybe the last sentence is saying that a leader should ideally work for the desires of the followers, meaning that ultimately, the majority gets their way. the civilization itself "has more power" over people's conscience. "To make conscious what lies unconscious among followers." now the leader is supposed to figure out what it is the majority wants? or no, help the majority figure out what they want. The leader must appeal to the followers' desires. not necessarily work to achieve those desires, just be appealing?

sketching for a prompt

1. How does a leader's conscience (or lack thereof) affect the shape of a civilization and each individual's conscience within it? Which has more power over people's conscience - the system of civilization itself or the people running it?

This depends on the civilization. If the people are encouraged to think for themselves and individuality and freedom are encouraged in a society, then probably the system of civilization itself is more powerful over the people's conscience, while in a society in which the people are oppressed and follow a single, all-powerful leader, then the "people running the society" probably have more power. Unless!! this oppressed society is pushed to the brink and they have a revolution? Maybe. But in the end, everything depends on the type of leader and the type society and the type of power the leader has in the society.

2. What drives human nature? What is it that civilization must do to adjust to that human nature so that it can function?

We are each a compilation of Jack, Ralph, Simon, Piggy, and Roger. Jack was all for following rules in the beginning, Ralph killed Simon along with everyone else, Simon heard the voice of the Lord of the Flies in his head, Piggy did too, and Roger... refrained from hitting people with rocks in the beginning. Hmm so maybe.. it's just society that changes people's true selves. And we're... unique mixtures of the things that all of these characters symbolize?? what drives human nature?greed, ambition, personal success. maybe peer pressure. group(mob?) mentality

3. Build around one modern day problem/situation. This problem, as well as what in human nature has contributed to that problem.

drug abuse? Human nature contributing to this problem because..... everyone wants to feel good. because.. people need an escape, an alternate reality? becaue of our failure to be content? people abuse drugs because they are always yearning for something better and are therefore prone to disappointment and hurt.