Eithics in Leadership - Short Answer Essay Questions - Midterm

Lesson One: Ethics Introduced

In this first lesson, we will discuss an introduction to the topic of ethics, what they are and how they are derived within the individual and the society.

According to Merriam-Webster, ethics are defined as “rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good and bad” (Merriam Webster, n.d.-b). This is a workable definition of ethics for the purpose of our introduction in this lesson and our future discussions. However, in order to truly understand what it is that we’re talking about when we discuss ethics, we need to dive a bit further and ask the next logical question: what does it mean to be “moral”?

Merriam-Webster defines “morality” as “beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior” (Merriam Webster, n.d.-c). The word “right” is defined as “morally or socially correct or acceptable” (Merriam Webster, n.d.-d). “Correct” is defined as being in conformance with “standard”, “fact”, or “a set figure” (Merriam Webster, n.d.-a). I suspect you can see by now that this line of attack proves unfruitful. We’ve arrived at a rather nebulous conclusion that ethics are essentially a codification of conduct which is in conformance with either a) that which is factually accurate, or b) that which conforms with social standards.

How do we reconcile all of this? It would appear that facts and social norms belong to two different spheres of knowledge and understanding. Is it possible to have an objectively factual concept of morality, and if so, would such a morality be compatible with what we know about current ethical underpinnings? These are difficult questions with which philosophers have wrestled since the earliest human records (and possibly pre-historically as well). By no means do we have all of the answers today. However, we have come a long way in understanding the nature of human morality, and the ways in which we can optimize righteous behavior. Yet, in almost every facet of human affairs today, leaders have debased their own ethical standards and succumbed to the temptations of greed, corruption, and selfishness. For aspiring leaders today, a working knowledge of ethical precepts, as well as the dynamics that commonly lead to deviation from ethical conduct, is critical.

Morality Demystified

As demonstrated supra, turning to a dictionary to explain what “ethics” really means will do little good. Instead of relying on the words themselves, it is necessary to look to the spirit of the distinction between moral and immoral behavior. What do all behaviors that might be considered to be “moral” have in common? The answer: an improvement in well-being. Keep in mind that the answer to the question does not depend on whether such behaviors are objectively moral. All that is necessary is that the believer genuinely believe the conduct to be morally right (Harris, 2014).

For example, if a killer believes that taking a life results in a better state of being, either for the killer him (or her) self, or the victim, or some third party(ies), then such a belief conforms with our proposition. Well-being is what is at stake here, and while such a killer might in fact be tragically mistaken as to the actual effects of taking a life on the well-being of those involved, the act was predicated on the belief (correct or not) that it would bring more good than harm.

Now, it is entirely possible that serious mental illness might provoke someone to commit an act either a) knowing of its immoral character, or b) with total disregard as to morality in general. We know very well that such conditions exists (e.g. psychopathy), and that at their extremes they can elicit incomprehensibly horrific behavior. However, absent such conditions it is generally agreed among sane and competent human beings that killing people is an immoral thing to do. Analyzing rationally, it lowers the well-being of the victim (being dead is about as low as it gets), and absent other information, there are no obvious benefits to be had.

However, that missing “other information” can dramatically alter such an analysis. Take, for example, the case of a soldier at war. Although most people---soldiers and otherwise---might agree that killing is unfortunate and undesirable, history has shown that we will gladly march into battle and spill blood on the justification that killing in these contexts is a necessary collateral cost to serve some greater good (Linker, 2014). For example, it is estimated that roughly five million Germans were killed in World War II, and any compassionate person should find the idea of five million human murders to be atrociously immoral, but few would argue that defeating the Nazi movement wasn’t the right thing to do, even accounting for the necessary killing involved. Self-defense, defense of allies, and liberation of the Jewish people were among the biggest legitimate reasons for doing so. Thus, we can conclude that even the least moral actions may sometimes be justified by extenuating circumstances; there will be exceptions to rules of morality (De Dora, 2010). There are a variety of reasons put forth to attempt to justify apparently immoral behavior, and not all are as convincing as that which I just described, but we will discuss the ways in which we as people rationalize immoral or unethical behavior in subsequent lessons.

Morality and Animals

It’s also worth mentioning that this same concept of well-being can be applied to non-human animals. However, in this context we must ask even more difficult questions. For example, consider the following: Would you be comfortable clubbing baby seals in the Arctic? What about slaughtering dolphins in Japan? How about poisoning someone’s pet dog? Or shooting an endangered rhino? Now, before you answer, what is important to notice here is that I have primed these examples with some clever, extraneous information which will likely provoke a strong emotional reaction to accompany your response. However, the larger point is that these are all acts which are committed by human beings with some degree of regularity, and the extraneous information provided isn’t strictly necessary to understand the valid application of well-being assessment with animals. In the first example, I intentionally described a notoriously cute animal. In the second, I referenced one of the smartest animals on the planet (rivaling humans in some ways). In the third example, I drew on the connection that most people have with dogs as household pets (perhaps this may have had less of an effect on you if you are not a “dog person”), and in the final example I provided relevant context that the rhino species in question is struggling to survive in the wild. As an aside, although I said nothing about the causes of the rhino’s endangerment, if your mind went to visions of rhinos being cut down for their ivory horns by unscrupulous poachers, then this in and of itself was part of your involuntary emotional “knee-jerk” reaction.

But imagine that I provided no such example. Perhaps I was instead to ask you how you would feel about ending the life of a cow that is destined for slaughter anyway. Cows are not particularly intelligent, not extraordinarily cute (by most standards), not commonly kept as pets, and nowhere near endangerment. Yet, if you’re like most people, then even this proposition would evoke a strong negative response. As goes the old adage, many people are OK with “eating the burger” so long as they don’t have to “meet the cow”. However, if we truly seek answers and are willing to approach these questions introspectively, we have to ask ourselves why. This particular example has to do with distance from harm, and we will be talking about this in more detail in subsequent lessons as well.

Now comes the summit of our thought exercise. Reflecting on your feelings toward the cow in our last hypothetical, ask yourself why you don’t feel the same sense of shock and awe at the notion of killing an ant or a fly. Unless you are the Dalai Lama, you probably don’t lose much sleep thinking about the endless scores of insects that you kill on a daily basis, intentional or otherwise (as it turns out, even the Dalai Lama can get over this) (Moyers, 2013). Why such a difference though? Ultimately, what we find at the end of this trail is that our predispositions toward the value of other life---just as with human life---is based on our presumptions concerning the degree to which we believe that such life can experience suffering or happiness (i.e. potential degrees of well-being). We simply don’t ascribe the same range of potential good and bad emotions to the ant that we do to the cow, and therefore we rationalize our ethical priorities around stepping on ants and slaughtering cows. As an aside, I should note that while our presumptions about these potential degrees of well-being are largely based upon sensory intuition (e.g. our built-in empathy wiring can detect emotions in the face, eyes, movements, and sounds of a cow, but we generally can do no such things with ants), our scientific understanding of the relationship between biological complexity and exposure to emotions would also support the proposition that cows can “feel” more than ants.

Thus, we know from analysis of our own emotions and behaviors that those choices which are labelled “moral” are generally those which are expected to increase the well-being of subjects involved. Yet, we can point today to examples of leaders in politics, religion, business, and elsewhere who appear to demonstrate behavior which could not be remotely tied to improved well-being. As we will discuss in this course, much of the apparent discord among individuals within a society is explained by the fact that the views of the individual are dependent upon the individual’s experiences and the values that he or she has learned throughout his or her life. This does not necessarily mean that there is no such thing as objective morality, as it is possible to arrive at a single moral determination on a given issue notwithstanding a variety of opinions. However, what it does mean is that convincing people that morality is not strictly subjective---and consequently avoiding the propensity for such drastic deviations from rational norms----is an uphill battle.

Conclusion

In this lesson, we discussed the definition and explanation of ethics, within the context of morality and its implications. In Lesson Two, we will introduce the concept of leadership and some of the leadership dynamics which may be predictive of ethical conduct.

References

De Dora, M. (2010, May 25). The concerns of morality: Well-being and flourishing. Center for Inquiry. Retrieved from http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/the_concerns_of_morality_well-being_and_flourishing

Harris, S. (2014). Clarifying the moral landscape: A response to Ryan Born. Sam Harris. Retrieved from https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/clarifying-the-landscape

Linker, D. (2014, March 19). Is war ever morally justified? The Week. Retrieved from http://theweek.com/articles/449193/war-ever-morally-justified

Merriam-Webster (n.d.-a). Correct. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/correct

Merriam-Webster (n.d.-b). Ethic. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethics

Merriam-Webster (n.d.-c). Morality. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality

Merriam-Webster (n.d.-a). Right. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right

Moyers, B. (2013, January 4). The Dalai Lama on respecting our environment. Moyers & Company. Retrieved from http://billmoyers.com/2013/01/04/moyers-moment-1991-the-dalai-lama-on-respecting-our-environment/