English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Who made the most sound ethical choices as President?
Who didn't make the most sound ethical choices as President?

Since the leaders of the free world are under constant scrutiny, how relevant is their personal life to their job? Should skeletons stay out of the public eye or be picked apart by society whom can question the character of said person?

Is their personal life reflective of their ability to perform a job?

Thoughts?

2007-09-01 13:52:47 · 17 answers · asked by Glen B 6 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

17 answers

It depends. All humanbeings are flawed and they do the wrong thing from time to time. The post important thing for me as the President is, has be done his sworn duty to uphold the constitution. That's it.

Clinton lied, I hated that, but I don't think the question should have been answered and I still believe he was a good President. And being squeaky clean does not make you a good candidate either.

Context, repentance, making it right, all kinds of issues are involved. But they do call it a "personal" life for a reason. I'm more interested what they've done in their public life, as long as they haven't broken any laws.

2007-09-01 13:59:40 · answer #1 · answered by Ellinorianne 3 · 2 0

Ethical is hard to define for a President. Since we, the people, never know the whole truth about why some things are done or not done until years later; it is hard to define who was the most ethical of Presidents. Lincoln comes to mind but when you know the real reasons of why the South tried to secede from the Union, you understand more fully that perhaps they were not so wrong because they were being given a raw deal by the North & the Federal Government backed the North in what they were trying to do to the South. So, no, Lincoln was not as ethical as one might think. Jimmy Carter probably was very ethical & moral but he couldn't get a 2nd term! Too bland & a do nothing President! Clinton was both unethical & immoral while President yet managed to serve 2 terms! Go figure! While in office, I think that a President should take the high ground in moral practice simply to preserve the dignity of the Office & if he is doing nothing wrong, he cannot be obliged to honor favors to those who may decide to expose him. His life before the Presidency, should remain as private at the media will allow. There is the argument that Bush is religious but I don't think that makes him an ethical person; an ethical person doesn't lie & is willing to assume responsibility for mistakes s/he has made.

2007-09-01 21:41:51 · answer #2 · answered by geegee 6 · 0 0

It's funny because, people do not want religion to be a motivating factor for the president's decision making. But, I think it's important that he have some kind of religion because it hopefully helps him make moral decisions when he is not sure what to do.
As far as the decisions being made referring to politics of politics, I suggest for the president to put religion aside and be a sneaky little guy and do whatever he can becuase if he doesn't, he may not get anything done. Unfortunately, thats the way I see things. I mean, for the president to be honest, and try to deal with politicians in an upfront manner would be pointless, he wouldn't get anything done ever.
He would be the only one making a career out of honesty and it doesn't work well when you're the only one being honest.
Maybe some people don't think that a person should have to refer to God to get their morals but I think it's good to think at least they have something to remind them of the difference between right and wrong. Look at how many people in just recent years, have had lots of publicity and power and through it away? Maybe if they attended Church more they wouldn't have gotten themselves into those situations.

2007-09-01 20:59:57 · answer #3 · answered by eldude 5 · 1 0

Who gets to define what is moral, what is ethical? The church? That violates the seperation of chuch and state...

What is more important, is the LAW and the CONSTITUTION.

A president should FOLLOW the law and uphold the Constitution. A president should not interpret the law, that is the job of the judicial branch of government. A president should not create the law, that is the job of the legislative branch. A presidents job is to execute the law as it is given to him.

Our current administration, and other recent administrations have violated the constitution for their own person agendas. They have executed countless executive orders, creating laws without using the legislative branch. They have also used executive orders to interpret the law to their understanding.

Personally, I dont care if the president cheats on his wife, (most presidents in history have been known to have women on the side) I dont care if the president smokes, is a gluton, engages in other legal acts that some think are immoral.

I do care when a president feels he is above the law, that the laws do not apply to him. I do care when a president lies and abuses his power to further his personal agenda.. I do care when a president fails to act on the nations' best interests...

Of all the speaches the canidates have given... only Ron Paul has made it clear that the constitution is his priority. He is the only one who wants to restore our constitutional rights and civil liberties.. He is the only one who has made it clear that he fully understands what it is to be president..

2007-09-01 21:13:19 · answer #4 · answered by Kacy H 5 · 0 0

To me, the character of any person has many facets. Most people who are very strong in some areas of their lives are apt to be weak in others. Its just the way people are. If we give too much to one thing, another suffers or there is apt to be a void that must be filled in some way that might not seem acceptable. Anything from too much golf, too many vacation days, to sleazy sex could result. I would think being an elected official these days is extremely stressful.

In choosing our elected officials, we only have a small group of options. I like the debates, but I would like them to be less limited in time for each question and each freer to speak more as a group than just having an allotted time. I am looking for sincerity, passion, compassion, and leadership qualities spiced with a bit of humility and respect. I would also like to see someone who has seriously considered that they will be taking an oath to uphold our Constitution.

If our elected officials are unable to work with others who don't agree with them, they will be worthless anyway. I am absolutely opposed to anyone who does nothing but spout how moral they are and how everyone else must abide by their set of morals. It has been my experience that truly ethical people don't find it necessary to brag about it.

2007-09-01 21:59:05 · answer #5 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 0 0

Question #1-President Theodore Roosevelt for his social reforms during the depression
Question#2- President Harry Truman for making the decision to use a nuclear weapon for mass destruction no matter what outcome it may have produce.

As far as leaders, moral character and the free world, I have no comment because I view the world in a different perspective.

2007-09-01 21:12:38 · answer #6 · answered by Meecho 3 · 0 0

Ethics -- very important. Any elected leader, but especially one whose job is to enforce the laws, should be required to abide by their commitments and abide by the public and professional standards of conduct that they have agreed to follow.

Morals -- not at all. Because morals are relative -- what is moral for one religion or culture may be immoral in another. And I don't think elected leaders should be making subjective decisions based solely on what their religion or culture wants them to do -- especially where those beliefs contract the laws or the objective professional ethics they have sworn to follow.

2007-09-01 21:01:31 · answer #7 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1 0

When those skeletons are drug into the oval office then it becomes public domain. Ethic and morals are important to me. That is why I will never have another Clinton in our white house. It takes too long to get the stench out.

2007-09-01 21:07:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

first off i dont know that bush morals or ethics.

I dont care what they do in their personal lifes. I do however think that what they do in public in their personal lives while in office should be morally and ethically sound.

to me bush is only just a little worse than clinton.
the most sound.........maybe carter. i think theyve been going straight downhill for a while.

2007-09-01 21:04:56 · answer #9 · answered by fishshogun 5 · 0 0

Important. Bush was dealt an ugly hand inheriting the 'mess' that Clinton left behind.

Clinton turned against America by being a coward President. He turns my stomach.

2007-09-01 21:03:50 · answer #10 · answered by D.A. S 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers