Should leaders sacrifice other leaders to forge an alliance?

[Merits Anih]

Every human life carries intrinsic worth and meaning regardless of their utility to someone else's agenda.

[Merits Anih]

Though situations modeled as zero-sum games superficially appear to force a choice between pragmatism and principle, ethical solutions that respect both parties' dignity always exist for those willing to seek them.

[Merits Anih]

The assumption that desperately harming others constitutes a necessary solution springs from a deficit of creativity and courage to imagine non-violent alternatives.

[Merits Anih]

Even if specific options remain obscured in the moment, surrendering one's morality for expediency's sake reflects the ultimate failure of vision and values.

[Merits Anih]

When lives hang in the balance, the choice facing us bears profound existential weight - to destroy human potential through cruelty, or to renew our own humanity through displaying mercy.

[Merits Anih]

Those who would readily sacrifice strangers to further their own ambitions ignore that even enemies belong to networks of dependents who will suffer from petty self-interest.

[Fatola Fatai]

In my own opinion, I believe leadership is often associated with qualities such as integrity and trustworthiness. So, resorting to betrayal or sacrificing others for personal or strategic gains can damage a leader's reputation and erode trust both within and outside their own group.

[Fatola Fatai]

So, successful alliances are typically built on mutual respect, trust, and shared interests.

[Fatola Fatai]

If we look at it this way, leaders are often more effective when they focus on diplomatic and collaborative approaches, seeking win-win solutions that benefit all parties involved rather than sacrificing others.

[Fatola Fatai]

A leader sacrificing others may lead to negative consequences in the long term. Just as I dont believe in the saying that, "the end justifies the means".

[Nompulelo Moyo]

Politics is unpredictable. People do things that you will not expect them to do for power. I did not think that King Cortez would do such a thing as killing Sconce. I do not think there is anything that warrants sacrificing other people to forge alliances.

[Cristiano Bellucci]

People in charge, like kings, have to take choices. Sometimes this means that they need to sacrifice something to get a greater result. This may not be ethical or fair, but it can bring higher stability and overall better results.

[Florence Daniel]

Leaders shouldn't have to sacrifice one another to establish an alliance. There should be a more diplomatic and strategic approach to fostering partnerships.

[Markus Tsammani]

The idea that it was a calculated move to fortify Cormay's alliance against more formidable foes makes sense to me. A great leader should, however—and this is a major but—have the dexterity to negotiate these waters without drawing a sword. Isn't diplomacy a skill?

Of course, keeping the kingdom safe comes first, and I can accept that. However, killing Sconce seems like a quick fix that could backfire on Cortez. In my opinion, a great leader would consider all other options before resorting to the extreme of eliminating a fellow leader. Or was this his final desperate attempt after he had run out of other options?

[Adam Bryce Stern]

This is ironically one of my favourite moments in this book. It not only shows the tough choices a leader has to make with little time and even fewer options but it also perfectly portrays the concept of the greater good in the grand scheme of things. Cortex HAD to make a drastic choice and he did.