Judge of Character - Research Paper Example

People generally look for qualities like personal honesty, integrity, morality and capability etc in candidates who contest for public office. They believe that normally a person who possesses these qualities will be a good administrator. However, the fact that remains that as opposed to this concept, sometimes a person with negative characteristic traits can be a better administrator than a person who has a flawless character. This can especially be so in politics, which rather demands shrewdness and diplomacy than straightforwardness. Public administration calls for tact, discretion and leadership qualities that may be present even in people who are not morally or ethically perfect. For example, one may consider Hitler as a bad character but cannot deny the fact that he possessed a great degree of leadership qualities and he was an excellent administrator for his country. On the other hand, Mahatma Gandhi, despite being popular for his great character and having leadership qualities, had never held any public office. The personal characters and qualities of representatives are vital because the voters consider these elements integral for people in leadership. However, they generally tend to disregard the fact that good governance needs something over and above ideal characteristic traits. Kant’s normative moral theory explains maxims as the universal behavior rules which one can apply to particular circumstances. However, maxims like “never lie” apply only in the context of circumstances. Thus, if a person lies for a common good it cannot be held as a bad characteristic trait. On the other hand, if a public official is corrupt, he cannot be accepted in office because everyone, including voters and candidates alike want to eliminate corruption because “everyone is against it” (Stone pg. 372). Kant believes that one’s action is more important than his or her character. In a practical context this appears to be a reasonable proposition as public officials in their duty are expected to act for the general welfare. Thus, it is better to have a person with bad traits doing good for the public than having a person who possesses a great character doing bad governance. This further delineates Kant’s argument that “the moral worth of an action has nothing to do with any consequences that the act might have” (Philosophy Higher pg.29). In other words, what a person does out of duty constitutes the moral of that action and public officials must do what they need to do for common interest irrespective of their character. Thus, a shrewd politician, while acting out of duty, will keep common interest in mind no matter how bad his character is. Consequently the action’s moral worth must draw from something inherent to the act itself than extrinsic to it. In Kant’s opinion the moral appropriateness of an act is a substitute determined by purposes or objects of the act. Kant thinks that an action without the motive of the duty is devoid of moral value. He believes that each action must have pure purpose behind it; or else it is worthless. He does not essentially consider that final outcome is the sole intent of an action, but that the way the person felt while proceeds with the action was the point at which value was positioned to result.  Kant takes intrinsic worth to be reasonable only in terms of a preceding account of moral or loyal behavior. Utilitarianism believes that the most moral thing to do is to find and exploit the happiness within the society. It also holds that actions have assessable results and further claims that ethical options have outcomes which guide to the most happiness to the most members of a society. Thus, utilitarianism is often related with the expression of the end results that rationalize wealth. In this context, every action is ethically compulsory or morally acceptable. This gives a larger choice, but it still prohibits opinion about which actions are morally suggested but not required, and it does not permit us to evaluate the ethical value of different actions. Hence, utilitarianism is as similar to the theories of Kant, as it also supports that good actions will lead to better happiness. Overview of Classical, Difference, Radical, and Equity Feminism Feminism is a theory or philosophy that focuses on establishing and protecting the economic, political, and social rights of women and strives to make these rights at par with the men of the society. Classical Feminism: Classical feminists believe that women should also have legitimate rights at par with that of men and such rights should be protected for the overall welfare of the society. It strives to bring parity among genders where “feminist sociological theory can claim a heritage in sociology’s history” (Lengermann para.36). Difference Feminism: It highlights women’s differences and states that more importance should be placed on these qualities. This philosophy emphasizes that men and women are different forms of human beings. Radical Feminism: Radical feminism intends to confront and defeat patriarchy by disagreeing with standard gender roles and domination of women and calls for a radical reorganization of society. Equity Feminism: Equity feminism intends to achieve civil and legal equality of women and envisages equal treatment that creates no commitments involving open practical issues in psychology or biology. How each type of feminism views the issue of women in a profession such as the military or law enforcement? The classical is of the view that in these systems women are not even considered as individuals. They are confined to a certain status without freedom or any chance to work for self-realization. The difference view emphasizes that women cannot handle the psychologically and physically stressful aspects of military training as they only have about half of the upper body strength of men. Radical feminist insists on the right of women to serve in war. Their focus is to get women into every job category including the armed forces and even in combat. Although the laws preventing women from combat have been abolished, each service still continues to state its own restrictions. The equity feminism considers that issues arise when men subordinates treat women in an insolent manner. Often women are being sexually harassed by men during the training periods as well as induction phases. What social inequalities exist? As law enforcement is a male-dominated profession, women in the workforce continue to be differentiated against and they always remain under-represented in military as well as law enforcement agencies. Thus, because of these forces being dominated by males, it appears that “discrimination and sexual harassment are bound to happen due to the overwhelming population of men as compared to the number of women in law enforcement” (Davis, pg.22). The number one barrier that women face in almost all the professions is the attitude of her male co-workers and the discouragement they receive from the society as a whole because of their inferior physical competence. Works Cited Davis, T.A. Gender Inequality in Law Enforcement and Males’ Attidues and Perception toward Women Working in Low Enforcement. The University of Texas at Arlington. 2005. Web. 07 July 2012. < http://dspace.uta.edu/bitstream/handle/10106/39/umi-uta-1181.pdf> Lengermann, P.M. & Brantley, J.N. Classical Feminist Social Theory. Omni Logos. 2001. Web. 07 July 2012. Philosophy Higher. SFEU. 2006. Web. 07 July 2012. Stone, W.J & Simas, E.N. Candidate Valence and Ideological Position in U.S. House Elections. American Journal of Political Science. 2010. Web. 07 July 2012. Read More