How would YOU rule?

With an iron fist.

If I were appointed as leader of a group, I am not sure whether my compassionate or callous side would be the more active one in my decision making.

If there were only a small group of people to lead, as you state, then punishments would have to be modified on a circumstantial basis, as you have to consider the environment at hand and how your group will continue to work together once one of them has been "disciplined"

The thing about punishment, is that it rarely just discourages that action in the future. It usually also creates a sense of hostility, mistrust, and anger at having been punished in the first place.

So really, with a small group I think it would be best to follow your natural instinct at the time and "lead on the fly" so to speak

I've answered something like this before :

Part 1: Two groups of people are stranded on uncharted islands. There is no civilization anywhere on the island. Group one has someone that takes on a leadership role. Group two does not have anyone to take lead. How do you think each group would progress.

Part 2: If you were the leader of group 1 what would you do?


Part One

Group One would only be better off than Group Two depending on the leader, how (and whether) that leader was chosen by the group and what sort of leadership would be done. Group Two may not be at such an obvious disadvantage as one may at first believe.

There are two considerations that the information provided does not clarify. First, and most importantly is group size. For survival in relatively primitive conditions, it would be best that the group not exceed 150 members. If the group is larger, either group would do better to divide into two smaller groups.* Secondly, there is no indication of how or why they are “stranded”, thus not only does one not know what supplies they may have, if any, nor do we know if this “stranding” was not something chosen.

First, let us examine the case of Group Two. Depending on the constituents of the group, a clear leadership, given the definition commonly understood, is not necessarily indispensable. Should the members of the group understand the gravity of their situation, it could very well be that the survival instinct and the social, empathic nature of the human species supervene upon the egotistical character traits of living in “civilised” society. Returned to the “state of nature” so to speak, even very abruptly, it is possible that the group take on the behaviour of a commune, or a collective, in order to perhaps consciously, perhaps subconsciously, avoid a 'leadership' dilemma.

It is not accurate to suggest, as did Hobbes, that in the state of nature :

"In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." – Thomas Hobbes, “Leviathan” 1651

Summum malum (greatest evil), according to Hobbes, is 'violent death' – this is a very large range, not only the risk of being eaten by something, but to die of dehydration, starvation and disease is also very 'violent' – and that this summum malum will be, by human nature, avoided at all costs, first through seeking peace, and then by conflict. Whereas it is not a current axiom that human nature is in an of itself violent (see the work of Dan Batson, University of Kansas), Hobbes was right in that human nature is inclined to promote survival, not only of the individual, but of the group as well. This is already an advantage to both groups, for the natural, empathic nature of the human is primarily, even primordially, driven toward survival of self and others.

Once again, we have not been provided the setting of these groups' isolation, whether it be in a lush rain-forest environment, a harsh, cold one or in a blazing desert. As naturally as otherwise, the more difficult survival is, the more competition for scarce necessities would engender conflict thus complicating any sort of leadership for Group One and requiring very strong will to the common good, summum bonum (greatest good, that being survival) for Group Two. So, let's not make this a Kobayashi Maru scenario – let's give both groups a chance …

They, both groups, are on different islands in a temperate, pre-tropical zone (doesn't matter which) where there is abundant floral and animal life, seasonal change and access to fresh water. We will say that there are resources, albeit they may require some organised effort to extract – perhaps even the fresh water could require a well. Since it is a pre-tropical zone, the cold may not be a problem, yet insects could be, as could be the preservation of food. The time is the present-day (2013) and the composition of the groups are of mixed ages and mixed ethnic, educational and economic conditions. Group size is small/medium – approximatively 60 -70 persons – survivors of a small passenger ship blown way off course in a storm and unable to call for help or radio the position before the radio was destroyed by lightening strike ; in short, help is not on the way.

For the first few days, the passengers are likely to look to the ship's crew for guidance until they realise that they are just as stranded and unfamiliar with how to proceed as themselves. Within the week, both groups with auto-organise so as to maximise efficiency for the necessary tasks by where their natural talents lie. At least, one would hope. More than likely, the primordial social structure would return ; there would be rules, but no rulers (so to speak). Women would look after the children, manage the homestead, gather and prepare food, whereas the men would organise hunting parties, guarantee security and resource extraction. Given the equality measure of our modern societies, these roles may not be as fixed as they were in history. Men and women would both share in things like shelter construction, tool making and other various tasks – yet in large measure, the gender division will be more noticeable than in “civilisation”.

On the whole, it is unlikely that Group Two would remain entirely without leadership. Human beings have a natural inclination to hierarchy – as witnessed by the other species of 'great apes'. Whether it would go so far as having a dominant male and a dominant female and separation of lodgings as we still observe in some sub-Saharan African tribes is doubtful. What would be interesting is to see what would happen if these groups' isolation carries on for three or four generations – that is where the real cultural experience would be profoundly recognised.

Part Two

I have become leader of Group One, but probably not overnight and I'm not really certain how. It certainly wouldn't be for my robustness nor for my incontrovertible wilderness survival skills. On the other hand, I am rather good with people, so that may be most of it. All things considered, they selected me, for I probably would not have presented myself for the job.

First of all, I would lead by example. For instance, if food was scarce, I would eat last. If there is something to be done, I just start doing it – and perhaps finish doing it – and then go on to the next thing. It could be incredibly helpful to have some community 'games' around the camp-fire, based on divergent thinking and collaborating. I may advise, but I wouldn't order. I would make suggestions, but not try to control. Neither would I wish to be loved nor feared. I would just be one of their company. This is also perhaps the case of Group Two, they may have leadership, but not know who is leading. This is an ideal, but that would remain to be discovered …

When conflict arises, it should not be met with more conflict. It should be met with understanding. The justice employed would be that which delivers the advantage to the least advantaged party in it. Violence breeds violence, no matter what the intention may be ; 'justice' therefore, as such, is rendered, and that issue is dismissed. In other words, one does not 'pay' for an error more than once. The leader, in this case me, must accept the imperfection of the world (the group) and not try to convince. With this assurance, the group will accept that which is in accord with the 'as such'.

Things will not be so harmonious, at least, not all the time. One must be vigilant to insure that no one is too rewarded for doing what they may do well, nor too penalised for doing what they may do badly. There should be neither rich nor poor, weapons should not be favoured over medicine. Yet the influence must not be evident to the group. If there are too many weapons, the group will not feel safe – they will feel threatened from within. But at the same time, people should not be helped too much ; there would best be autonomy supported by solidarity. There would not be too many nor very complex rules. The members of the group would know what they should contribute and thus it would not be forced. They would desire their just participation. The summum bonum of Hobbes would be dismissed since it would become the reality of daily life.

Tolerance oriented toward acceptance would be the general credo, first and foremost practised in the delivery of 'justice', as stated above. No one should fear to speak his heart, for that tends to separate people from their own hearts (see Zimbardo, the Stanford Prison Experiment). There should be little which promotes in-group/out-group identification. The peoples' happiness, summum bonum, should not remain a considerations – when one is too preoccupied with 'making people happy', that is a guarantee that many will not be. One would avoid Bentham-style utilitarianism. Goals would most likely be minimal, so that they could be easily met – then forgotten. As it were, people tend to get on quite well, and are more productive, if left to tasks by themselves, with very little direction. Too much administration confuses everyone.

The leader, as leading by example, does not exhibit wealth nor power. The beginning of wisdom being to know that one does not know, the Way points to itself. One, and by consequence all, understand that simplicity is clarity. When one learns to live with nature and not compete with it, the good comes by itself. Therefore, leading from below and not being very obvious about it, no one would have to feel impressed nor intimidated. No one would compete for the position of leadership which is on the same social level as oneself. In essence, one does what the others do, one guides but does not govern, one does not preach, one shows.

If one, if I, could “lead” in this way, no one would want to be rescued from the island. If I could do this, I would be invisible as a “leader” and just be the me that everyone could know truly. In this way, perhaps Group One and Group Two are actually the same group. Just perhaps …

If someone was more capable than myself, I'd have them rule. If that gauntlet of responsibility was mine, I would base all my decisions on what was best for the group, even if it meant exiling members or food rations.

Call me a dictator, but an apocalypse calls for desperate measures, I'd imagine.

I'm a fan of the "punish in private, praise in public" practice...

steamboat28 wrote: With an iron fist.

How did I know that this was going to come up?

RyuJin wrote: I'm a fan of the "punish in private, praise in public" practice...

I would agree, only pushing people into a pit filled with walkers isn't as fun without an audience, "people gotta have their entertainment," Lol.

Honestly I'd be too caught up in grief to give a rats you-know-what. I imagine the rest of the group would be too unless they all happened to be friends, family, robots, or had no strong family ties. I would suggest mass suicide of our tiny group, to get on with the next life. And hope the ending of that one didn't suck as much.

I really reacted to the imagery of loosing all my family and being stuck with a bunch of strangers. After some thought, I calmed down and started to think more about the other people with me ; we would all be devastated. I don't think laws, religion, or reason would help the group. I think group cry, hug, and talk sessions would be more appropriate. Compassion would be the foundation of the new world order.

Sorry for the first post, I tried editing the first one but I was denied access. Emotion just got the better of me, again.

Storge wrote: Honestly I'd be too caught up in grief to give a rats you-know-what. I imagine the rest of the group would be too unless they all happened to be friends, family, robots, or had no strong family ties. I would suggest mass suicide of our tiny group, to get on with the next life. And hope the ending of that one didn't suck as much.