POLL: A representative's duty.

Remove all ads!

Question for you...should a representative for group (read elected official) follow what is right (morally, ethically, or for the general good), or what the people he represents want, when confronted with a decision in which these are in conflict?

I know there is no such thing as a black and white decision where one choice is absolutely right, and another is absolutely wrong, but for the sake of this poll and discussion lets use the impossible hypothetical.

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 16 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: A representative's duty. (16 votes.)

A representative's duty. (Choose 1)
* Representatives are honor bound to do what is right (morally, ethically, or for the general good), even if it is not what their constituents want. - 56% (9)
* Representatives are honor bound to do what the majority of their constituents want, even if they know that choice is wrong (morally, ethically, or for the general good). - 44% (7)

 

The problem with this question is that the representitive would have got into there position in the first place by doing what the people wanted. If they go againced the peoples wishes, they can't expect to stay in power.

Note: I voted for the "General good" option

 

Magister,

Your statement assumes that there are many instances where right and the majority are in conflict...not sure if this is the case in reality, but we are in a hypothetical anyway.

But to be honest, at least in America, as long as you don't screw up, have a scandal, or lose a military base in your district it really isn't all that hard to get into or stay in office. Look at Kennedy, he is a screw up, let a girl die in a car he drove into a river and he is still in office. Not sure if he lost any military bases though, so maybe you have to hit the trifecta.

 

He should do what he feels is best for the country he is a representative of. Whether moral or immoral is immaterial since morality is subjective.

Frankly I hold the opinion that democracy is seriously flawed and its major flaw occurs when an elected official does what will keep him elected rather than doing what is the best for the country.

 

I took morally and ethically right. On questions of morals, there are no excuses.

 

I choose the second "Representatives are honor bound to do what the majority of their constituents want, even if they know that choice is wrong (morally, ethically, or for the general good)."

That is what I believe they are there for.

 

There are problems for both of these options Darkwolf.

The first choice

(morally, ethically, or for the general good)

are all subjective feelings held by the one in authority. His feelings may be different from the feelings of others. The leader shouldn't assume that he has some sort of hot-line to the 'truth channel', and instead acknowledge that his feelings are just that, his feelings, and not his knowledge of 'truth'.

The second option assumes that 'the people' have an opinion, or a feeling. 'The people' do not exist; rather, America is a conglomerate of individual people, and individual self-interests and individual feelings. All countries are that way. Lately, I have been noticing this tendency we all have to assume masses of people have one voice, or even a voice. They don't. Rather, one guy is just claiming to speak for a large number of people, most of whom don't even know the guy exists. Sometimes this third-person representation is useful, such as when we speak of corporations: "Microsoft decided to implement a share buy-back plan..." But other times it can lead to bad things: "As the leader of the peoples' worker party, my voice is their voice. The workers have united, and I speak for them."

So, leaders have to use their ears, eyes, and yes, their gut instincts, to make decisions for others. Tough job if you take it seriously.

 

It's a difficult question to answer because it pre-supposes that the ethical/moral thing to do is in fact not what the people want. I'm having a hard time envisioning this. Most people want what is ethically/morally good.

 

Quite a tricky question really. In a democracy the ideal would be that the people allways decide and the representative follow the views of the people, but the views of the people often change very quickly so long term choices should not be made on the basis of pollings. It's all about finding the middle way between the two, going drastically against the public opinion is not good but neither is changing your policy according to every newest poll that comes in. In the end I think the general good gets the upper hand since political justice should be served at the very latest in the next elections.

 

That's one of the tougher questions.

Though I agree with Gnarf about the moral/ethic dilemma, I also find it very important that these elected people do what they are basically asked for: Be the voice of the people.
The people should do what is morally and ethically right, too, and the representatives should follow that.

That also is why I find it so hard to understand there can be only 2 options for a government (like Republicans and Democrats). If both don't appeal, then what should you choose? On the other hand, the Dutch government counts about 12 parties and sometimes it's hard to choose, if you can't see that some are complete morons. Every arse can start his party here, like the Pedo-Party a few months ago. Good that not all get enough backup.

 

I took morally and ethically right. Sounds good even if only a dream. I don't normally equate politics with morals but expediency.

 

There is no 'right' when speaking of morality or ethics, it's subjective. So, whose opinion should a representative mandate? I say the opinion of the people (the opinion of the majority) rather than his own.

An elected official should never patronize those he represents by saying: I know this is not the policy that the majority of the public wants, but it's for your own good.

 

But then... There are people with a lettuce's wits who vote for something that they have no idea of what would be the consequences. Those elected persons use to know more than the majority of the people. This way these representatives are forced to choose the middleway, which isn't good enough for both, quite often.

I really don't know what to answer to this.

 

I vote for being a representative of the people, hence representing them. Unfortunately, as MoN and others mentioned, sometimes this means that people who have no clue elect representatives that proceed to mess up everything, or just that his/her constituency has ideas that are not morally accepted by most others(i.e. a pre-1861 senator from a southern state defending slavery). Still, in a democracy, you have to make do with the citizens you have, not the citizens you wish you had. Saying "Group X doesn't have a clue/is immoral/is anti-us" is a good, solid step on the road to a nice little dictatorship.

Besides, whenever I hear about a politician that deviated from his campaign ideas for a "common good", I often roll my eyes. Normally, said "common good" results in his bank accounts increasing significantly more than mine. Perhaps it's just my bad luck.