# data[].attributes.body
1. Was Confucius an idealist? Why/why not?

2.  Compare Confucius’ ideas on government to those of Machiavelli. What are the differences between them?

# data[].attributes.headline
Questions (ANSWER AFTER WATCHING THE VIDEO)

# data[].attributes.subject
Questions (ANSWER AFTER WATCHING THE VIDEO)

# data[].attributes.body
Which perspective -- Machiavelli or Confucius -- is more evident in the Singapore context? Provide examples of politicians or policies to support your response.

# data[].attributes.body
Should a good leader be morally flexible?
Is it wise to overlook the needs of a handful for the greater good?
Provide reasons for your responses.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Confucius was largely not an idealist. A leader ruling a country is expected to be proficient in handling affairs, be it external or internal, and indeed is trustworthy. He is expected to allocate the nation's resources wisely and have a passion for his people. The existence of this expectation is evident around the election periods where the leaders of different political parties visit different parts of the countries to hear people's concerns out as a show of affection and to gather knowledge to know how to manage the nation's resources better when they win the elections. It's also to gain the people's trust. A leader is also expected to be the guiding light to where the nation is headed towards next, hence being referred to as the polestar, which was used as a guide for navigation when lost back in the old days. When being ruled through force, the people of the country will lack respect for the ruler as they may feel violated and lost when they have no clue why such a rule is being implemented. However, when being led through moral force, the people of the country share a set of morals that prevent them from committing the crimes in the first, not only removing the need for rules to be in place, but also increasing their trust in the ruler as they may feel that the ruler is on their side. However the idea of keeping within one's role is idealistic according to today's standards. There is no place for a ruler in the role of a ruler in the government today. People want a leader in the role of a ruler. This is because a ruler rules the country through harsh regulations. A leader guides the country, and perhaps implements regulations where need be.

2. Confucius' ideas of a government was one that is enthically correct and hardly morally flexible, which was very idealistic. On the other hand, Machiavelli felt that the government was one that would be morally flexible to attain the greater good for the people despite the fact that they needed to get their hands dirty, as long as the outcome is achieved. For Confucius' his idea is one that is desirable but not realistic, whereas Machiavelli had a more realistic view

# data[].attributes.body
in Singapores context, Confucius' perspective is more evident. The government prides itself on the moral values they hold, such as not being corrupt, being accomodative to the needs of the people. Policies made are sure to include everyone or at least not cause any harm to those that do not benefit. They also ensure that they are scrutinised by different parties to ensure that policies they come out with is well rounded and not unfair to anyone

# data[].attributes.body
In Singapore's context, Confuscius' approach to governance is more suitable. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong stated in an address to parliament that Singapore needs a strong government with honest leaders in order to maintain our competitive advantage. This aligns with Confuscius' ideals of having ethically sound leaders to ensure a state functions well. Michiavelli's consequentialist view would not be as applicable.

# data[].attributes.body
1. yes confucius was an idealist. he would rather follow his moral values than other practical solutions and actions to issues.

2. machiavelli was not concerned about being morally right at all while confucius based his decisions on his morals.
machiavelli was not concerned on being loved by this people as long as he had their support even if it was out of fear, while confucius wanted to make sure the people loved him with their support.

# data[].attributes.body
In the Singaporean context, the Confucius POV might appeal better. In an honest, competitive and effective government body, to be able to listen to the needs of others is important especially when having to decide on various policies that affect different ranges of parties in many ways.

It also helps that Confucius would seemingly not be afraid to regulate governmental aspects. This is especially so since Singapore is a multiracial society. As such, there are many different needs required to be taken into account, and thus, compromises would have to be made, by hook or by crook.

A simple example of such regulation would be the HDB racial quota policy, where those living at certain HDB blocks are limited to a certain proportion of the different races living in Singapore (eg. Chinese, Malay, Indian). Although this may not be a simple policy, as it may withdraw the opportunity of others to gain housing, it would be necessary in Singapore to prevent future issues such as racism, prejudice, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, Confuscius was an idealist. He believed that all good leaders should possess a specific set of qualities, but it is nearly impossible to find such people. In 1:5, from The Analects: On Government, he states that a leader is only trustworthy if he is economical in expenditures, loves the people and uses then only at proper seasons, which is a tall order.

Machiavelli thinks that in politics, evil deeds cease to be evil if urgent public interest makes them necessary, hence good leaders should be consequentialists. On the other hand, Confuscius believes that a good ruler is a highly ethical individual, in other words, a deontologist.

# data[].attributes.body
Confucius was an idealist. The perspective that a highly ethical leader would be the greatest form of leadership is unrealistic in any time period of human history including the present. An ethical leader would not be able to make tough calls which unfairly affect any of their supporters making them appear timid and spineless to both their followers and other groups.
It is idealistic as an ethical leader would be quickly manipulated by their supporters and exploited by other groups. It fails to account for human nature and how we naturally take advantage of people who appear weaker than us. Thus it is not applicable to today’s context.

This differs from Machiavellis idea of a government as their perspectives are polar opposites of each other. Machiavellis perspective is that leaders should make decisions based solely on their usefulness and any consequences others may face as a result should not be seen as good or evil but a necessary sacrifice. In turn leaders should also not feel any sense of guilt or pride but see their actions as part if their job.

# data[].attributes.body
A good leader should be morally flexible.
To be morally flexible is the ability to justify an immoral action by generating multiple and diverse rationales for why these actions are ethically appropriate.

The duty of a leader is to organise, guide and manage others. They are held responsible for the fate of the public because they are the ones who make the decisions. Therefore, it is their duty to maintain the safety and well-being of the public and there will be instances where they have to “dirty their hands” for the greater good, rather than strictly following one’s own moral compass at the cost of the lives and sufferings of the people who entrusted the role of a leader to them.

A very clear example was one that was mentioned in the article 1.1 On the Art of Politics…Machiavelli Was Right . Where Ex US president Barack Obama sent US Navy SEALS to kill Osama bin Laden, the founder and first leader of the islamist militant group al-Qaeda. The Deontological approach would be that it is wrong to kill regardless of its consequences. However, something needed to be done about the group as they continued to pose as a major threat to the world. For example, they were responsible for the 9/11 attacks which killed nearly 3,000 people. Such attacks may continue to happen anywhere else, and killing Bin Laden would efficiently reduce those risks, to prevent the potential loss of more innocent lives.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Being morally flexible refers to morally adapting to the situation at hand, instead of adhering to a certain set of principles. Why should a leader be morally flexible? A leader should be able to address situations effectively. However, different situations are different in nature. These may require approaches that may transcend principles that the leader may adhere to. However, as a leader, one must do what needs to be done, if it's for the greater public good. However, that doesn't mean that a leader should always act in the public's favour. Although the public may demand something, it may be morally incorrect to adhere to their demands. Therefore, while I do agree to a large extent that a good leader should be morally flexible, there are times when inflexibility is the right and just approach.

2. The general public consists of majorities and minorities. The consititution of the group of majorities and minorities may differ when addressing different problems. For example, while progressive taxation may upset the minority of the rich as a larger proportion of their large income is taken away by the government, this policy may favour the poor as a smaller proportion of income is taken away. When looking at enhancing the transport systems of the island by building more roads and highways, the constitution groups of majorities and minorities change, where the majority are those who do not live close to highways and minorities are those who do live close to highways, resulting in greater noise pollution for the minorities. However, just because a handful number of people are affecting when taking a step forward for the much larger general public, does that mean such initiatives should not be taken? It depends on the significance of these two groups of people. If downplaying the minorities overrides other, higher-ranked priorities, then maybe it's wise to revise the approach. For example, a country may decide to expand its economy by investing in the tourism sector. This may require a large, constant supply of water to maintain hospitalities such as hotels. In order to maintain such facilities, water supply to rural farming villages, a minority, may need to be cut off, impacting the harvest. Because this heavily impacts the food supply of the country, such an approach may prove to be detrimental to the greater local public, resulting in an overall lower standard of living despite the many jobs that may have been created for locals. However, sometimes, the needs of the minorities need to be overlooked not because they are insignificant, but because there are greater priorities at the moment. Hence, if the needs of a handful should only be overlooked for the greater good, if its significance is not greater than that of the majority.

# data[].attributes.body
An idealist is one who is guided more by ideals rather than practicality. In Confucius's case, it seems that he leans towards the idealist side. In his style of leadership, and with reference to Analects, it describes what is to be expected of individuals and little on what should specifically be done. It seems to be more like "wishes" for the people rather than instructions which can be thoroughly followed.

At the same time, that is not to say there is no wisdom in his philosophy. There are singes of regulation and control littered throughout, making it authoritative and useful in the context of power especially for governments. There is pragmatism seen.

When comparing Confucius and Machiavelli, Confucius seems to have greater interests of others at heart, whereas Machiavelli is simply unbothered and does as wills.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Confucius an idealist. He believed in following moral values to lead a country. He did not believe that punishments and cruel actions was a good way of governing. Instead, it was by moral means that he felt was the best way to lead people in a country or state.

2. For Machiavelli, he felt that the ends justify the means. It would not matter how morally incorrect an action is, if it was useful to society. Essentially, there is no such thing as morally incorrect in politics if it was useful. Confucius was the opposite of Machiavelli. He believed that it would be on moral grounds that a people should be governed. Morality played a big part in how he governed a state, instead of the usefulness of his actions.

# data[].attributes.body
1. We believe that Confucius was an idealist. He believed that human beings had an innate moral sense, which could be cultivated and developed through education and self-reflection. He emphasised the importance of personal virtue and the need for individuals to act with sincerity, benevolence, and wisdom in their daily lives. However, humans are typically selfish and immoral, as believed by philosopher Thomas Hobbes.

2. Confucius and Machiavelli had contrasting ideas on leadership. Confucius believed in benevolent leadership, where leaders lead through moral force. On the other hand, Machiavelli believed leaders should lead with force and deception to achieve the necessary outcomes.

# data[].attributes.body
Christian and Gatik

No, a good leader should not be morally flexible to the best of their ability regardless of how it may affect their popularity or image. Without such morals, leaders can easily fall victim to power trips and selfish decision making which would severely impact their supporters.

However, a good leader should not be so fixated on their morals and beliefs that their decision making becomes hindered. In many cases, world leaders are stuck between a rock and a hard place forcing them to make decisions for the greater good. While these choices may be unfair, I believe that a good leader should be able to make their own judgement based on their own experiences instead of abiding to any one perspective as the worse decision would be indecision.
thank you for coming to my tedtalk.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, moral flexibility is a crucial criteria for good leader as leaders bear the responsibility of deciding on the best outcome. In Paragraph 6, Walzer says that politicians should be wrestling with the conflict between private morality and the public good. This is true because everyone has their own set of ethics and morals but following these may not necessarily lead to the right decision that benefits the most people.

For example, think of the Trolley problem. As a leader, one would have the responsibility of making the decision that benefits the most people, which, in this case, is saving the most lives. Even if the leader is a deontologist, he should be able to exercise moral flexibility and realize that he would have to compromise his own morals and make sacrifices to achieve the best possible outcome.

Following this logic, perhaps it would be wise to overlook the needs of a handful for the greater good when making a decision. Leaders should focus on protecting and benefitting as many people as possible even if it means making a few sacrifices.

# data[].attributes.body
No, according to Maciavelli, a good leader should not be morally flexible. He believed that politicians must do evil in the name of public good and should not worry about it. This corroborates that a good leader must be willing to sacrifice morality and ethics for the benefits of the people.

We believe that although evil is ironically a good tool, the leader must be conscious of his or her decisions and must know the limits that govern basic human rights. Sometimes, although evil seems more appealing and applicable, compromises have to be made if decisions seem too wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
It would not be advisable for a leader to be morally flexible. As a leader, one would be expected to be able to stand their ground and tactfully respond. Leaders would be expected to have the respect of their people, knowing that no matter a decision made, the people know that their leader has their best interests at heart, even when it may be difficult.

For a leader to be morally flexible makes it seem that the leader can be easily swayed by various opinions. When opinions are excessive, it may then be difficult to make certain decisions, thereafter leading to a ripple of unpredictable side effects. It could very well lead to chaos and entropy in society, while causing the loss of respect of the leader.

At the same time, a leader should not always overlook the needs of others. While being able to stay grounded is important for a leader, gaining respect can come in other ways, such as keeping an open mind to public consensus. It is then with such a consensus that a leader will be able to re-evaluate certain decisions, and how it may be adapted to the needs of others, while being able to wear their heart on their sleeve and think of the overall greater good.

# data[].attributes.body
1. To be morally flexible is the ability to justify one's immoral actions by generating multiple rationales for why these actions are supposedly ethically appropriate. Leaders should always work for the benefit of society. In our opinion, leaders should not always be morally flexible. Leaders should, for the most part, be morally inflexible, because they should always have their own justified moral compass, so that they can make decisions that work for the good of society. However, sometimes it is needed by leaders to be morally flexible. Sometimes, a large part of society may want something to be done. But morally speaking, this action instead should not be done. The leader then has to take actions into his own hands, not bothering about the problem of dirty hands. It is times like these where the leader should exercise appropriate moral flexibility to decide what is best for society.

2. "Greater good" is achieved when society is able to benefit from a decision made by political leaders after it is made. Decisions should be made wisely after careful considerations and weighing of the costs and benefits. Although all members of society should be treated as equally important by political leaders, if the decision would help improve the quality of life of most people in society, then it is not wrong to carry out the decision to work for the greater good. However, this is not to say that the small handful should be ignored. The political leaders should think and implement ways such that this minority would not suffer as much, such as creating things like support programmes or schemes. Thus, it is wise to overlook the needs of a handful for the greater good, but the handful should not be neglected in the process of doing so.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Yes, he was an idealist. Confucius was most concerned about the qualities that make a good ruler, and how different people with different qualities function to their best ability, creating a society led by people that have the perfect qualities in their field.
However, Confucius was also practical in the sense where he recognise that social hierarchy and education was necessary for one's qualifications for leadership and for law and order within society
2. Machiavelli has the view that decisions are made based on how useful and the benefits that they bring about, not by ethics and morals. He believes that decision making for a society should be based of the magnitude of benefit it brings to society rather than moral goodness.
Confucius has the view that decisions are made through one's morals. Although some structure is required, such as social hierarchy and education, Confucius believes that decisions, when made by one who is morally just, educated and with leadership qualities, would bring about the best benefits for a society, regardless of magnitude of benefit

# data[].attributes.body
No, a good leader should not be morally flexible. In fact, having a strong sense of ethics and morals is a crucial trait for a good leader. A leader who is morally flexible may be willing to compromise their principles or values for personal gain, which can ultimately harm the people they are leading and damage the trust and respect that their followers have for them.

Personally, decisions on overlooking the needs of the few to benefit the majority is largely dependant on the situation. However, in a situation where having to dedicate scarce resources from the mjority just to benefit a few lives may not be economically sound. While it is true that we should try our best to help every life possible, sometimes sacrificing a few to save many makes more sense than sacrificing many to save a few. Sometimes, compromises DO have to be made.