Why Is Hitler A Bad Leader

Hitler was not a bad leader. He was definitely a bad person, obviously, but a bad leader? He represented the ideas that the public wanted. He was what the Germans of the time wanted him to be, and that is what you need to be a leader. Many people would say that you do need morals, but those ideas come from a place of emotion and not logic. When electing the representative, they know what the moral stance they take on what’s important. If he is elected then it is not anyone else’s fault besides the ones who elect that leader. Also, the moral thing to do is not always the best for the country. Leaders do not have moral obligations, only obligations to follow the morality of the citizens they lead. Some people say that leaders need to be morally upstanding in order to be inspirational, but leaders are elected to lead, not to inspire. Another common argument is that without fulfilling moral obligations, leaders cannot function and do what is best for the people. This also is wrong, because when being elected these morals are factored into whether to elect and are often shared by the citizens and the leader. The tasks completed by leaders are completed because the leaders want them as well, but also give the benefit of being what the people desire. The final common argument is that without an ethic code, …show more content…
While there are many reasons people say morality is important, these reasons are not pragmatic or empirical at all. When electing the people often know his morality and if he still gets elected, then the people will have to deal with it, but most of the people would be happy with a morality that matches their own, even if it is not a good one. We have had very little amount of cases of moral people who are bad leaders who impacted the world, but a ridiculous amount of cases of people who were amoral, but fantastic