. If one is genuinely trying to instill a sense of duty for a good, substantial reason, then no.
— ToothyMaw

I think that's pretty much what a noble lie amounts to: it's technically a lie, but it's for a good, substantial reason of drawing the people towards what's good. Since your account asks leaders to instill goodness in others through manipulation it seemed to fit. — Moliere

I still don't see how that is a lie. They aren't brainwashed; they are convinced that there is a good cause and that they should take it up. I would say manipulation is not always via unsavory means, although it has that connotation.

A cynical exploitation would not be a noble lie, but just a lie. — Moliere

It could be a noble lie if one subscribes to the definition of duty as merely what one "ought" to do, exploiting whatever pre-existing sense of duty there is in a person or people, even if it is to good ends. That, I think, is the wrong way to go about it. One should lead by example, demonstrating that a cause is worthy even without such an appeal.

These concepts can be real to one person and not another and it doesn't diminish the importance of duty to those who are attuned to it.
— ToothyMaw

I'm going to try and do a little philosophy with this sentence, if you don't mind.

Something that's confusing to me here is "concepts can be real" -- not the relativism, but just that sentence alone. My guess is you're saying duty is not a noble lie because duty is real, in some sense. So duty is real for some people, and not real for others. Is that correct? — Moliere

Yeah, that was directed at other people. My bad. It doesn't relate to what I was saying to you, and I wasn't going to say something ridiculous such as that duty is such a real concept for some that it exists in a way such that it cannot be a lie. However, go ahead and say what you want about it. I kind of want to know what you were going to say.

Interesting, but I don’t see why a person’s sense of duty needs to be controlled, redeemed, or influenced by some kind of ideal leader. “the right people in the right position to lead”, as you write. — 0 thru 9

Well, are you prepared to be the president of the United States? Do you think I am? Would you trust, for instance, a bigot to do a good job? Or a career criminal? Some people are objectively more prepared than others.

And yes, I think the right leader can help us make things the way they should have been a long time ago; if the people could do it on their own it would have happened by now.

And who are these “right people”? Any examples? Are they ‘true patriots’?
Are you referring to the USA and its upcoming elections, or any country?
Some further description might help. — 0 thru 9

I think that if you are asking those questions you already have some ideas of your own. I'm not going to name anyone, but yes, I would like a genuine patriot to be in office - even if they have some less than excellent ideas.

Or they just another politician? — 0 thru 9

Definitely not. They cannot be another politician.

I still don't see how that is a lie. They aren't brainwashed; they are convinced that there is a good cause and that they should take it up. I would say manipulation is not always via unsavory means, although it has that connotation. — ToothyMaw

That's at least pretty close to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie ? Or not?

It's not brainwashing. It's myth making.

However, go ahead and say what you want about it. I kind of want to know what you were going to say. — ToothyMaw

My first thought is that if duty is real for some and not real for others then there are some people who are not attuned to duty. So who are the dutiful, such that we know they are attuned to duty, and who are those who are not attuned to duty? Or is it not a kind of knowledge at all?

One should lead by example, demonstrating that a cause is worthy even without such an appeal. — ToothyMaw

Seems like it would apply to Donald Trump and to Joe Biden, for instance. At least we can see that there are people who follow either leader, and so believe those leaders to be demonstrating their cause to be worthy. But you're blaming the leaders -- so it's not them.

In fact I think it's no one, if I'm reading you correctly.

So how am I to know this duty when I see it?

The best leaders know that duty begets duty. — ToothyMaw

A couple of cliches come to mind:

Preaching to the choir - meaning it's not difficult to convince those who are already committed.
You can't coach heart - meaning you can't convince someone to have passion.

This is to say that the easiest leadership role one can be put in is one where one's followers all operate out of a sense of duty. One whose motivation is that of righteousness isn't someone in need of leadership. He's going to do as he's going to do and he's going to tell you to fuck off if you violate his sense of righteousness..

It's also to say that you can't instill a sense of duty in someone who doesn't have it. You'd be wasting your time. His driver is something else and you'll need to identify it in order to gain motivation. If you keep telling someone they ought to work harder because it's for the good of the community at large but he's just looking for a bigger paycheck, he's not going to change his mind just because you said it.

How can you say:
Motivation comes from inside.
— T Clark

Then say:
A desire to avoid the judgment of others.
— T Clark

Isn't that contradictory? — Merkwurdichliebe

No. I don't see it as contradictory at all.

I think you guys misunderstand — ToothyMaw

I think I do understand, but I disagree with what you wrote. As I noted, I don't think duty is the strongest motivator or even a particularly important one for many people. As for the rest of your formulation, sure, strong, loyal leaders are necessary, but I'm not as cynical about our system as you are.

The important point is that the motivator has personal a base, not a relation to something external like "duty". — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree with this.

"Duty" is better described as a director of action rather than a motivator of action. A person with no sense of duty might still be highly motivated to act. So if you want to talk about "duty", you ought to be able to make this distinction, between being motivated to act, ambitious, and being directed in your actions by some sort of sense of duty. Then we could discuss how ambitions are directed. Accordingly, the following paragraph doesn't make much sense: — Metaphysician Undercover

I think the distinction you make between duty as a director rather than a motivator is a good one.

Your thread is a success - lots of interesting ideas and responses. That said...

Two dictionary definitions:

1. a moral or legal obligation; a responsibility.
"it's my duty to uphold the law"

2. a task or action that someone is required to perform.
"the queen's official duties"

3. something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation. the binding or obligatory force of something that is morally or legally right; moral or legal obligation.

Your definition is " a feeling of obligation brought about by expectation that is irreducible".

There is considerable difference between duty as "legally obligatory" and duty as "a feeling of obligation". Both kinds of duty operate among people, but the former has a much sharper edge than the latter.

Legal and moral obligations are learned, and their strength depends on intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, and other emotional components, like love, fear, loyalty, selfishness, and others. So it's possible that in a given individual or group "duty"may or may not be the single strongest motivator for action.

I say that the right people in the right positions to lead need to stand up and allow us some redemption. — ToothyMaw

On many occasions "the right people in the right positions" have led. The American Revolution and both sides of the Civil War were brought about by the right people in the right positions. Another group of the right people in the right positions brought about the first Gilded Age of excess in the late 19th century and again in the late 20th. We're very much in this period of excess. In reaction, to the Gilded Age excesses, another group of the right people in the right positions brought about a historic, widely beneficial rearrangement of wealth, particularly during the Great Depression, WWII, and the Post-WWII period, running roughly from 1930 to 1975. Around the 1970s, another group of the right people in the right positions undid the labor/capital/government coalition that had resulted in a major redistribution of wealth from the richest people to the working class.

Everyone involved in all this was doing "their duty" to the group to whom they owed the most fealty. So, the duties of the right people in the right positions cut both ways. Unfortunately for us, the oligarchs make up most of the right people in the right positions.

"the right people in the right positions" are generally not the rank and file of the people: they are the elite. The American economy was structured to serve the interests of the elite, as opposed to the rank and file. That's capitalism for you. What "duty" means to a capitalist is not going to be the same thing that it means to a socialist. What "duty" means to a member of the 1% or the top 1/10 of the 1% is going to be considerably different than what it means to a member of the impoverished working class.

Socialists and communists talk about "class consciousness" because what your "duty" can or ought to be depends on how you recognize your real position in society. Except for defined legal duties, there's no such thing as a commonly recognized duty across the different classes of people. People who don't know their class elbow from their ass are liable to accept the altogether inappropriate duty to vote for the leading oligarch candidate.

Nowhere do I say that duty is what one "ought" to do, but rather is a subjective motivator that can be manipulated by good leaders to good ends — ToothyMaw

Ah, OK, so you are not actually talking about duty on your thread of that name, but instead about manipulative leadership, and pretending that we call this "duty".

I'll leave you to it. You have enough problems here already.

That some people are highly motivated without feeling duty says nothing about the power of duty, just as the claim that, say, there are more roses in a garden than any other type of flower is not affected by the claim that there are other types of flowers in a garden. That this "garden" could hypothetically have a different composition I grant, but all of the flowers need not be roses for most of them to be. — ToothyMaw

OK, so now it's your turn to demonstrate why you believe that this particular flower, the one you call "duty", is more prolific than all the rest. I don't see how the Third Wave experiment demonstrates this.

The article says "As the movement grew outside his class and began to number in the hundreds, the experiment had spiraled out of control. " There are millions, billions of people in the world, "outside his class", "hundreds" does not represent a majority. This is more like Trumpian logic, 'I have thousands of people at my rallies, therefore the majority supports me'. You might say 'I see hundreds of people motivated by duty, therefore duty is the single strongest motivator'. You have not provided the premises required to produce your conclusion.

The people are distracted, disillusioned, and misled in a system that presents false dilemmas and destroys any attempts the common people make to better their lives. We live under the yoke of the corporation and the billionaire, both of which have disproportionate impacts on policy such that getting anything off the ground is a tremendous effort - and just when we think we might win our prospects get shot in the back of the head by corporatist, career politicians. So, I say that duty has been here all along, it has mostly just lain dormant - but it flares up sporadically, giving us insight into what could be if the right man or woman came along. — ToothyMaw

I don't know how aware of it you are, but you're rattling off many alarmingly convenient oversimplifications. Philosophers often seem to overly rely on interpreting problems through a moral lens. "The immoral billionaires and their evil corporations are manipulating and abusing the innocent, who need a bold, righteous leader to rise. A hero who can lead us, the many, to a new, great future". Yeah, that's not what you said, it's my interpretation as a cynic, but how off is it really?

The devil is in the details, and the issues I imagine you're referring to are far more complicated than you're making them out to be. The public is quite complicit in supporting the system that creates the conditions you're (probably) referring to. I'd emphasise that more specificity is needed. I've no interest in discussions so vague that neither of us has any real idea what the other is saying, so I'll leave it there.

The latter seems to be more likely. But he may be going deeper to the absolute nature of dutifulness (which he has articulated rather vurgarly as to be confusing: viz. "duty"), and not to a moral imperative, if you get my meaning. [Add.: Not everyone is capable of dutifulness] And in that sense, there IS naery a thing that we can point to as a greater motis operandi. — Merkwurdichliebe

Right, but for Kant duty is not paramount, reason is. It is our duty, according to him, to follow what reason dictates, which is the categorical imperative. Duty does not define itself as this or that. Do we owe duty to our own well; being over society's or to society's over ours?

That said, duty is more usually defined as that which society expects of us, and what I said about duty and what we ought to do not being synonymous was in light of that fact.

And who are these “right people”? Any examples? Are they ‘true patriots’?
Are you referring to the USA and its upcoming elections, or any country?
Some further description might help.
— 0 thru 9

I think that if you are asking those questions you already have some ideas of your own. I'm not going to name anyone, but yes, I would like a genuine patriot to be in office - even if they have some less than excellent ideas. — ToothyMaw

Thanks for your reply.

I probably have a different sort of ‘patriot’ in mind: Bernie Sanders lol.
Yeah, he lost, he’s too old, he’s not a reeeeal genuwine patriot, etc. (Some may say).

It’s probably just a fantasy, but I enjoy picturing a world where social conditions are not twisted to the extreme like taffy, and citizens are not stuck like flies in the sticky morass.

In that kind of world, I imagine many would do their duties freely and happily from the sheer joy of it.
(Not that he or anyone else could make that happen. Except Jesus on a motorcycle :halo: )

I still don't see how that is a lie. They aren't brainwashed; they are convinced that there is a good cause and that they should take it up. I would say manipulation is not always via unsavory means, although it has that connotation.
— ToothyMaw

That's at least pretty close to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie ? Or not?

It's not brainwashing. It's myth making. — Moliere

It isn't, because at no point is there a requirement that a falsehood or myth be propagated. To say it plainly: the leader shows through duty to a cause that the cause is worthy and the people pick it up if they agree that this is a good cause led by a suitable leader. The causes one might propose could actually compromise social harmony in the short-term, but, if this leader is at all moral, it is unlikely they would spread a myth to gain power, as that could have all kinds of bad effects.

Maybe "manipulate" was the wrong word.

One should lead by example, demonstrating that a cause is worthy even without such an appeal.
— ToothyMaw

Seems like it would apply to Donald Trump and to Joe Biden, for instance. At least we can see that there are people who follow either leader, and so believe those leaders to be demonstrating their cause to be worthy. But you're blaming the leaders -- so it's not them.

In fact I think it's no one, if I'm reading you correctly.

So how am I to know this duty when I see it? — Moliere

Consistency, authenticity, candor, good intentions, competence, dedication to achieving clear goals that align with your own. The ability to listen. I think it is easy to recognize when someone is showing you the way to what you want, or what you think your nation needs.

the easiest leadership role one can be put in is one where one's followers all operate out of a sense of duty. One whose motivation is that of righteousness isn't someone in need of leadership. He's going to do as he's going to do and he's going to tell you to fuck off if you violate his sense of righteousness.. — Hanover

Righteousness is intertwined with duty; some of the most driven people feel duty to a righteous ideal. If you can get a man to airdrop into a jungle deep behind enemy lines with nothing but some basic navigational instruments and a rifle out of a sense of patriotic duty, you are playing with something powerful.

I don't know how aware of it you are, but you're rattling off many alarmingly convenient oversimplifications. — Judaka

I'm aware I'm simplifying things, but I wouldn't say that they are oversimplifications.

The immoral billionaires and their evil corporations are manipulating and abusing the innocent, who need a bold, righteous leader to rise. A hero who can lead us, the many, to a new, great future". Yeah, that's not what you said, it's my interpretation as a cynic, but how off is it really? — Judaka

The public is quite complicit in supporting the system that creates the conditions you're (probably) referring to. — Judaka

I have said in this thread that the people need to be redeemed because we very much are complicit in the current situation we find ourselves in, that we support the systems that keep us down, and that a leader needs to come along and help us start helping ourselves.

Philosophers often seem to overly rely on interpreting problems through a moral lens. — Judaka

If we didn't view it through a moral lens there would be no impetus for change - or any recognition that such a paucity would even matter. You might claim that it is not beneficial to be so intensely judgmental of corporations and billionaires...but I don't know why you would.

It’s probably just a fantasy, but I enjoy picturing a world where social conditions are not twisted to the extreme like taffy, and citizens are not stuck like flies in the sticky morass. — 0 thru 9

That's a good way of putting it. Maybe some day, right?

I probably have a different sort of ‘patriot’ in mind: Bernie Sanders lol.
Yeah, he lost, he’s too old, he’s not a reeeeal genuwine patriot, etc. (Some may say). — 0 thru 9

Yeah, Bernie is great. I would call him a patriot and would vote for him if he ran again.

OK, so now it's your turn to demonstrate why you believe that this particular flower, the one you call "duty", is more prolific than all the rest. I don't see how the Third Wave experiment demonstrates this.

The article says "As the movement grew outside his class and began to number in the hundreds, the experiment had spiraled out of control. " There are millions, billions of people in the world, "outside his class", "hundreds" does not represent a majority. This is more like Trumpian logic, 'I have thousands of people at my rallies, therefore the majority supports me'. You might say 'I see hundreds of people motivated by duty, therefore duty is the single strongest motivator'. You have not provided the premises required to produce your conclusion. — Metaphysician Undercover

The point of the experiment was that he quickly formed a fascistic super movement. That it was localized at a school means nothing. It didn't have to grow into the millions for the point to be made: it is easy to manipulate people into acting like Nazis, who largely had an incredible sense of duty to their country, even if they were the epitome of evil.

If we can easily recreate the conditions that gave rise to the militaristic, hyper-nationalist Nazis, doesn't that say something about the power of duty to country and leader?

Also: I wasn't saying that the majority of people need to have a sense of duty for duty to be the most potent motivator. The flower comment was not meant to be taken so literally.

Ah, OK, so you are not actually talking about duty on your thread of that name, but instead about manipulative leadership, and pretending that we call this "duty".

I'll leave you to it. You have enough problems here already. — Banno

Maybe you don't know this, but when we do philosophy sometimes words are used differently. In fact, sometimes we agree to give words new meanings without negating the other meanings those words have in order to discuss philosophy better. Fascinating, isn't it?

Well, I think there is two basic problems with the conclusions you draw from the experiment. First, is that you cannot necessarily say that it was a sense of duty which lead those people into that movement. Different people have different reasons for joining into such a movement. Second, is that even if all those people were moved by a sense of duty, this does not validate your claim that duty is the "single strongest motivator for action", because there is no other motivators offered for comparison.

There is no indication of what percentage of the people exposed to the movement joined the movement, and there is no indication as to what other type of motivators those people were exposed to at the same time for comparison, to show that they chose the experimental movement out of a sense of duty, over something else. So for example, it might have been the case that the people who joined the movement were just extremely bored at the time, with nothing better to do, or even that some other incentives for joining were offered, that are undisclosed to us. (The followers were students, and the conditions were of course set up by the teacher who was carrying out the experiment, so he might have set up conditions of extreme boredom in the classroom, then offered the students 'something to do'.)

Well, I think there is two basic problems with the conclusions you draw from the experiment. First, is that you cannot necessarily say that it was a sense of duty which lead those people into that movement. — Metaphysician Undercover

Maybe so, but once they joined the movement, they had some idea of the duty they had to the movement and its leader; the expectation was that they would do their part, whatever that might have been, to serve the cause, and they clearly relished it. If that isn't duty, I don't know what is.

even if all those people were moved by a sense of duty, this does not validate your claim that duty is the "single strongest motivator for action", because there is no other motivators offered for comparison. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do I really have to go through all the different motivators humans have? My contention, if you have been paying attention, is that duty can override just about anything - not that it is the most prolific motivator.

Do you think the Spartans could have existed without their incredible elevation of duty above all else? It takes something powerful to get a mother, or wife, to tell her husband or son that they should die if they find defeat, and it takes a lot to get a man to fight until he dies merely for the benefit of the state or the tribe.

Love, you might say, is as powerful. It is certainly more pervasive, but I think it is too capricious. Ambition? No one who is motivated by ambition solely would make significant sacrifices for the less fortunate, or give their life, as it doesn't serve to further their own power or rank. So, what does that leave us? Self-righteousness like Hanover mentioned? There is a risk there, that you become so blind to certain other considerations that you lose yourself and your good intentions over time. Duty is always in context, always able to be revoked and applied elsewhere - and it never loses its edge so long as one avoids becoming cynical.

There is no indication of what percentage of the people exposed to the movement joined the movement, and there is no indication as to what other type of motivators those people were exposed to at the same time for comparison, to show that they chose the experimental movement out of a sense of duty, over something else. So for example, it might have been the case that the people who joined the movement were just extremely bored at the time, with nothing better to do, or even that some other incentives for joining were offered, that are undisclosed to us. (The followers were students, and the conditions were of course set up by the teacher who was carrying out the experiment, so he might have set up conditions of extreme boredom in the classroom, then offered the students 'something to do'.) — Metaphysician Undercover

Once again, I think the people joined for myriad reasons, including just feelings of obligation rooted in that the people in the movement expected other people to join, but quickly adapted to the movement and felt intense feelings of duty and a desire to serve once they joined. I mean, they delegated a bunch of different jobs that were carried out with fervor, including assigning the guy who started the experiment bodyguards.

And, once again, the important thing isn't the percentage of people who joined that were exposed to it, it was that anyone at all was able to be converted, let alone hundreds, and that those who joined were so zealous. As for the classroom being boring: any teacher who would do an experiment like this is probably an entertaining teacher.

for example, it might have been the case that the people who joined the movement were just extremely bored at the time, with nothing better to do, or even that some other incentives for joining were offered, that are undisclosed to us. — Metaphysician Undercover

Would you say that we should take into account boredom when discussing why a nazi became a nazi? Or would you attribute the joining to a mental weakness that is exploitable by charismatic leaders heading up (not so) righteous causes? Maybe we should consider whether or not they joined because their favorite uncle said he would buy them a case of beer if they did?

If we can easily recreate the conditions that gave rise to the militaristic, hyper-nationalist Nazis, doesn't that say something about the power of duty to country and leader? — ToothyMaw

Perhaps it says something about how comfortable humans find it, to feel like we have a role in our social primate band?

Perhaps duty is a reification humanity came up with for discussing the strong impulse to take care of the family?

Perhaps one's notion of duty might be a simplistic mythical ideal that doesn't correspond very well with the way things happen in human societies?

So I do think deontology is more fitting than consequentialist theories for an ethical foundation. However, I think deontology itself has to be qualified for this to be true.

If you follow a command- even an ethical one, you have to do it for a reason. Well, how do you know if that reason is "good" or not? Generally that more meta-ethical question has to do with issues dealing with universal principles. These universal principles, in turn, have to do with something more though. Simply being universal doesn't confer morality to it. Rather, it's something deeper. It has to do with some sort of shared aspect of being we share. That shared aspect is our being living animals. Hence words like "dignity" is often used as to the content of this aspect of living animals (some might only focus on the humanity rather than animal aspect but works the same). But it's not enough to point out the "what" (dignity) that is common among us, but also there must be some emotional aspect, and that is where "compassion" comes into it. Thus, the meta-ethical root of ethical action and sensibility is the emotional component of compassion. Compassion applied to ethics, is not violating the content (dignity) of others. Violating this dignity would be things like not respecting autonomy of others, not respecting the suffering of others, etc. So that is how I think deontology is rooted. It can't simply be duty for duty's sake.

Perhaps one's notion of duty might be a simplistic mythical ideal that doesn't correspond very well with the way things happen in human societies? — wonderer1

...

Perhaps it says something about how comfortable humans find it, to feel like we have a role in our social primate band?

Perhaps duty is a reification humanity came up with for discussing the strong impulse to take care of the family? — wonderer1

Those are undoubtedly good questions. I'm more concerned about how to go about getting the right people to step up and give the people who want change direction, as I think a dutiful, loyal leader can make the difference.

If you follow a command- even an ethical one, you have to do it for a reason. Well, how do you know if that reason is "good" or not? Generally that more meta-ethical question has to do with issues dealing with universal principles. These universal principles, in turn, have to do with something more though. Simply being universal doesn't confer — schopenhauer1

the meta-ethical root of ethical action and sensibility is the emotional component of compassion. Compassion applied to ethics, is not violating the content (dignity) of others. Violating this dignity would be things like not respecting autonomy of others, not respecting the suffering of others, etc. So that is how I think deontology is rooted. It can't simply be duty for duty's sake. — schopenhauer1

Probably the best reply yet.

I agree with you. Duty is at best a vehicle for (likely deontological) moral convictions and an outlet for action, as duty for duty's sake is not sufficient to provide a meta-ethical base. Duty, I would still say, is the keystone of putting together a moral world, however, but must be guided by compassion and respect for the dignity of others.

:up: :smile:

Would you say that we should take into account boredom when discussing why a nazi became a nazi? Or would you attribute the joining to a mental weakness that is exploitable by charismatic leaders heading up (not so) righteous causes? Maybe we should consider whether or not they joined because their favorite uncle said he would buy them a case of beer if they did? — ToothyMaw

Yes, all those reasons are valid possibilities, along with a myriad of others, some more prominent, some less. That you choose one as "the strongest", without any clear justification of your choice, makes it nothing but a subjective opinion.

In fact, sometimes we agree to give words new meanings without negating the other meanings those words have in order to discuss philosophy better. — ToothyMaw

Of course you do. It's an insidious habit, leading to all sorts of problems - see Wittgenstein. Here, you think that you have explained how important duty is, when all you have done, as I and others have pointed out, is to say that leaders are manipulative.

You think you have done something profound, when you have only done something silly.

I contend that duty is perhaps the single strongest motivator for action I can think of, whether it is duty to the tribe, an ideal, a spouse, etc., and should be nurtured wherever it exists to good ends — ToothyMaw

As a child who watched B17s fly over the family farm house as WWII wound down, and then as a young man in the 1950s my first thought, now, when reading the introduction, was required military service. Conscription existed into the 1970s in the US, and I never questioned the practice until the years of the Vietnam War, after I had done my stint and resigned my commission as a captain in the USAF. Up to that point I felt the need to fulfill my "duty". Afterwards, not so much.

How many of you served in an armed forces and considered it your "duty"?

It's an insidious habit, leading to all sorts of problems... — Banno

Yes indeed.

In fact, sometimes we agree to give words new meanings without negating the other meanings those words have in order to discuss philosophy better.
— ToothyMaw
Of course you do. It's an insidious habit, leading to all sorts of problems - see Wittgenstein. Here, you think that you have explained how important duty is, when all you have done, as I and others have pointed out, is to say that leaders are manipulative.

You think you have done something profound, when you have only done something silly. — Banno

Look, Banno, it is easy to send these little snippets of sarcasm and ill will at people trying to argue their point of view in good will. If you want to engage in cynical drive-bys, be my guest. But if you actually want to engage, even if you believe it is below you, you would stand to benefit too, I think.

I actually don't think I have done a very good job of arguing for what I'm arguing for, and do not believe I have said anything particularly profound. But I'm trying.

That's more than you can say, isn't it?

all you have done, as I and others have pointed out, is to say that leaders are manipulative. — Banno

No, I said the right leaders should use everything available to them to rally people to their cause and instill a sense of duty in them. I might have used the term "manipulate", but that doesn't always mean unscrupulousness - it can just mean controlling something cleverly.

Consistency, authenticity, candor, good intentions, competence, dedication to achieving clear goals that align with your own. The ability to listen. I think it is easy to recognize when someone is showing you the way to what you want, or what you think your nation needs. — ToothyMaw

These all sound good to me. I'd even be able to point to some examples of people that fit.

I'm not sure anyone would disagree with this list. They'd disagree on who fits, though. And I bet we'd be more inclined to put dead figures on the list, too. It's easier to honor the dead than the living.

I suppose I'd just point out that we have quite a few leaders. But I don't recognize your list in many of them. And so this is the cause of doubt: it seems that we already have leaders who believe themselves to be all of these good qualities, but we're lamenting that they don't possess them.

But is it just because certain people haven't seen that it's their duty to lead and influence people towards good ends? We have lots of people attempting to lead and influence, it's just not the right people? Is all that's stopping them is that they don't realize what their duty is?