Ethics

Introduction
Egoism vs. Altruism – Self vs. Others
Ethical Processes
Hill’s Ethics
Ethics and the Leadership Process
Conclusion

Link

Citation

Favorite

Collect this page

Introduction

Prior to making an ethical decision and behaving in an ethical manner and, providing ethical leadership, in my opinion, requires one to go through a significant discernment process. Ethics is “ought to” behavior. I think that ethics determines at baseline the difference between right and wrong. Wilkens (1995) says “Learning about the ethical systems that are part of our world has value in itself. It helps us understand why people do what they do…These systems can be the crucible in which we test our own decision-making process” (p. 27). I initially thought simply obeying the Ten Commandments would suffice in all situations. However I throughout this class I learned that what Wilkens (1995) calls “Divine Command Theory” (p. 169) may not be sufficient for all situations. Indeed, there are many varied ways to consider one’s ethical decisions. For example one may perform ethically by taking a Utilitarian or Kantian view. One may use what Wilkens (1995) calls ethical relativism, virtue ethics, ethics based on love, natural law or by utilizing a mix of all of these. However, no matter what mix of an ethical reasoning processes one uses one should infuse the decision making process with the Christian worldview described by Alexander Hill (1997). When one uses ethics, reasons ethically and, makes ethical decisions, one uses components that constitute an important part of the leadership process. When one examines the ethical process one may find a range of ethical models ranging from poor to the good. After one examines the ethical processes of others one may be able to form and actualize ones own ethical model and integrate it into a leadership process. Indeed one may be able to imagine many ways in which one may be able to use the viewpoint one has developed. Before one decides on an ethical process, one should decide if one wishes to proceed in an egoist manner or by using altruistic means.

Egoism vs. Altruism – Self vs. Others

Wilkens (1995) utilizes Ayn Rand’s ideation of a simple dictionary definition when characterizes ethical egoism as “concern with one’s own interests” (p. 46). “The key concept behind egoism is our innate impulse toward life. We naturally strive to preserve it, and without it, nothing else matters. Therefore, we should use reason in ways that will protect and enhance life. This means that our foremost ethical obligation is to do that which is in our self-interest” (Wilkens, 1995, p. 52). Egoism is basically the process of always considering what is best for oneself sans regard for others, this process is based on selfishness. Wilkens (1995) discusses how selfishness is the correct way to act ethically. Indeed, he uses Ayn Rand to show how it possible for selfish behavior to be rational behavior. That means that one must use one’s thought processes to come to a rational decision. Rational decisions are not automatic. The premise behind this thought process revolves around the thought that if one considers what is best for one in all situations then positive outcomes for others will naturally follow. Wilkens (1994) uses a “universalistic approach, which argues that each and every person should be selfish…the moral obligation of each individual is to perform only those acts that are advantageous to himself or herself” (p. 46). Additionally Wilkens (1995) states that if one behaves in an egoistic manner then, technically, one’s self esteem should increase and there would also be increased pride in one’s accomplishments. Personally I believe that egoistic thinking is contrary to Christian thinking. If one thinks of oneself all the time eventually they will encounter contradictions. At some point time one will have to choose one’s own self-interests over what is best for others. For this reason I think that an altruistic ethical process provides a better framework for the ethical leadership process. Altruism is the opposite of egoism.

Altruism on the other hand is doing what is good for others without regard to self. Altruism means that “ we have obligations to other people and should act for the benefit of society” (Wilkens, 1995, p. 46). Altruism, according to Kanungo and Mendonca (1996) is” directed primarily for the express purpose of benefiting others” (p. 37). An altruistic behavior can have the additional benefit for the person performing the altruistic act. In my opinion, altruistic behavior is more in line with Christian principles and Scriptural teaching. The Bible teaches one to love others as one loves oneself. Altruistic behavior exemplifies this tenant. Altruistic behavior means that one must act unselfishly. Prior to thinking of oneself one must think of the needs of others. I believe that individual needs will be met if one serves the needs of others first. I think that acting altruistically requires rational thought processes. In this case the rational thought process would bring one to the conclusion that it is best to serve the interests of others rather than the interests on oneself. “Altruistic behavior always reflects a helping concern for others” (Kanugo & Mendonca, 1996, p. 40). I think that while it may be more difficult to think others first, the teachings of Christ should lead one to altruistic behaviors. After deciding if one whishes to behave either altruistically or egoistically, one should decide what type of ethical process one wishes to use. There are many different processes.

Ethical Processes

One ethical process is what Wilkens (1995) describes as “Divine Command Theory” (p. 169). This process is based on obedience to God. It seems to me that this process is based partly on the Ten Commandments and partly obedience to a spiritual calling. In order to use this ethical process one must have faith in God. “Having faith means only that we have concluded that certain things are true” (Wilkens, 1995, p. 176). This process, in my opinion, presupposes that one cannot always understand the logic behind God’s thinking. However, one is expected to use one’s relationship with God to and Scripture to discover his will. Wilkens (1995) states that “When we recognize that God has a right to demand anything he desires and that he has made his demands known in Scripture, our duty is to believe and conform to his will” (p. 176). In other words, through Scripture God detailed our exactly what is right and wrong.

Utilitarian ethicists operate on the premise that doing what is best for the largest number is the best way to make an ethical decision. According to Wilkens (1995) this ethical premise has two components – the greatest happiness and the greatest numbers. The greatest happiness is important to the utilitarian view since it is the desired result of an ethical decision. “The result that should be desired is happiness, because it alone is intrinsically good” (Wilkens, 1995, p. 84). According to Wilkens (1995) one who practices utilitarian ethics recognizes that when one makes and ethical decision not everyone will be pleased with the results. “Utilitarianism acknowledges that happiness ‘for all’ cannot be achieved in every situation” (Wilkens, 1995, p. 85). It is not important to please everyone rather it is important to consider everyone’s needs and make an ethical decision based on the greatest benefit for the greatest number.

Kant’s ethics are based on deontology – duty. Duty means that one should do what one ought to do. There are two basic tenants included in Kant’s moral philosophy. Kant calls the tenant’s categorical imperatives. Wilkens (1995) defines the term categorical as an absolute, something that must be, there are no exceptions to a rule. A categorical imperative is a rule that must to be obeyed by everyone. I believe that telling the truth is one of these imperatives. Wilkens (1995) discusses the universality of principles. In other words, everyone should be able to comfortably use the same principle. For example, honesty may be considered to be one of these principles. Therefore, one should not ask anyone else to lie nor should one ever willingly tell a lie. According to Kant in Wilkens (1995) the second categorical imperative is that one will never use another as a means to an end. “If people are intrinsically valuable, they should not be manipulated to achieve a goal” (Wilkens, 1995, p. 105).

Ethical relativism is another type of ethical process. It is, according to Wilkens (1995), a process “That [has] no absolute standards for moral judgement. Any standard for determining right and wrong is relative. Ethical relativism, the belief that there is no moral truth that applies to all people at all times” (p. 30). The problem with this process is that one would have to behave in whatever the culture around one dictated. Therefore, if the cultural norm were to behave unethically one would end up participating in this type of behavior. Since right and wrong are left out of the equation one may indeed end up behaving in a non-Christian like manner. One would have to ignore the teachings of Christ and “go with the flow.” Therefore, I do not think that ethical relativism is a good ethical process.

Virtue ethics is the process of “being good…Virtue is the predisposition to do good things, an internal motivation that not only does the right but also loves what is right” (Wilkens, 1995, p. 115). Wilkens (1995) uses both Plato and Aristotle to explain virtue. Plato’s definition of virtue leads one to perfection while Aristotle’s version leads one to idealism. “Goodness” in my opinion is also a Biblical tenant. I believe that by following the examples set by Christ to the best of one’s ability that one will be “good.” It does not really matter if virtue is the result of perfection or ideals. What is important is that one try to emulate Christ as much as possible. Christ throughout his lifetime performed good works- virtuous works, thereby setting an example for mankind.

“We do the right thing when we act in a loving manner” (Wilkens, 1995, p. 133). Ethics based on love permits one to break the rules if by following a rule one would cause some sort of harm to another. Wilkens (1995) describes ethics based on love as situation ethics. One’s ethical behavior is dictated by the situation. For example, if one knows that by telling someone the truth that they would cause irreparable harm to another person is it okay to lie? Love ethics says it is indeed all right to tell a lie if the situation warrants it. I am not entirely sure this a Christian ethical principle. There are situations in the Bible when people lied to save the lives of others. However, the conditions were extraordinarily dangerous. It does not seem to me that one should change one’s Christian ethical principles to behave how the situation dictates.

Natural law ethics may be considered to be “ought” ethics. Wilkens (1995) describes natural law ethics as “how things ought to be, not how they are. When something functions the way it was designed to work, it is functioning naturally” (p. 150). This ethical view is the result of the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas “To the natural law belongs those inclinations to which a man is inclined naturally” (Wilkens, 1995, p. 153). These teachings state that natural law is the result of cause and effect and doing what comes naturally. For example it is natural on a basic level for one to seek food, it is natural on a higher level for one to seek friendship, it is natural at the highest level to think rationally. These things come naturally. One ought to eat, one ought to seek friendship – it is the natural thing to do. If anyone, Christian or not, applies natural law ethics by thinking rationally then the result should be positive. Wilkens (1995) discusses how rational thinking should bring one to a “morally good” (p. 160) decision. However, I think to apply ought at the rational thinking level one must bring the teachings of Christ into “ the ought.” I think it is very difficult to behave ethically without bringing some sort of Christian ethics into play. Alexander Hill explains a Christian ethical worldview.

Hill’s Ethics

There are three principles set forth by Hill (1997) that can influence ethical decision-making. They are holiness, justice and love. These are principles that are based on Scripture. These three principles, if used properly, can be used while thinking out an ethical decision. Holiness according to Hill (1997) is composed of four parts “zeal for God, purity, accountability and humility (p. 23). I understand zeal to mean that one will pray prior to acting. Actions will occur in accordance with prayer response. Zeal means keeping the Spirit with one as one acts. I understand accountability in the leadership role to mean that one do what one says one will. Purity, to me means that one will not sin in my role as a leader. One must be honest and forthright in one’s dealings with others. Humility means that one will not act as a tyrant. One must take into account the needs of others as well as one’s own.

Justness is for me a multidimensional multifaceted concept. It is a complex skill that requires practice. Of all of Hill’s (1997) principles this one seems to have the grayest area. Many problems do not have clear-cut black and white answers. . True justice in my opinion may be very difficult to ferret out. Justice, to me, means the reacting fairly to conflicting claims. Justice is the quality of being impartial and fair.

Love, to me, means, following God’s commandment to treat others as you would want to be treated, or to take the concept one step further to treat others as Christ would. One should ask if one is treating another as Christ would. Once one develops an ethical process it must be integrated into the leadership process.

Ethics and the Leadership Process

It is important for one to develop and use an ethical paradigm within the leadership process. I think ethical leadership requires an altruistic paradigm. Ethical leadership does not necessarily need to be Christian leadership but I believe it would help. Ciulla (1998) discusses ethics in relationship to transactional and transformational leadership. She discusses charismatic leadership and equates it with transformational leadership. She explores the ethical implications of both styles of leadership. Rost (1993) provides a leadership definition that seems to lend itself nicely to many ethical paradigms. Transactional leadership is more common than transformational leadership according to Burns in Ciulla (1998).

Transactional leadership is easily described. It means one gives something one gets something in return. The “something” can be positive or negative – reward or punishment. It seems to me that transactional leadership is more of an egoist style of leadership. Ciulla (1998) notes that transactional leadership serves a short-term purpose. It is not enduring. Whoever is providing the reward or punishment has control. Since the leader controls the transactions, it may be difficult for the leader to think of anyone but him or herself. I find this type of leadership to be coercive. Therefore, an ethical process under this type of leadership would also probably be coercive. Ciulla (1998) uses Keeley to dispute the effectiveness of transactional leadership and ethics. There is in transactional leadership “no common good, and leaders and followers who could not consistently be trusted to do ‘the right thing’…It makes little sense for leaders to do more than allow the factions to compete” (Ciulla, 1998, p. 149). I think transactional leadership is reactionary. I think this philosophy is pervasive in transactional leadership. The transactional leadership model, in my opinion, encourages the leader to react to the global environment. Reactionary leadership does not in my opinion lend itself very easily to ethics. Reactions are in my opinion quick. When one is reacting quickly through necessity there may be no time to discern what is right and what is wrong. A transformational leader may find it easier to consider ethics when formulating a leadership paradigm.

Bass in Ciulla (1998) describes transformational leadership. This type of leadership has a transforming effect on followers. It occurs when one or more persons engage in a relationship that promotes the welfare of the collective group. Bass in Ciulla (1998) states that “Leadership is fundamental to ethical considerations” (p. 170). Ethical transformational leaders are socially oriented according to Ciulla (1998). This is an altruistic view. One who is socially oriented thinks of others first. I think that when one considers others first it is easier to act in an ethical manner. Since a transformational leader intends just that – transformation there is ample opportunity to consider what is right and what is wrong before proceeding.

I think that of all the leadership processes Rost’s (1993) process lends itself to ethical behavior. He defines leadership as “An influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes” (p. 102). Rost’s (1993) definition is a process however, it does not specifically contain an ethical piece. Since the process is an influence relationship it is non-coercive. The purposes are mutual that, in my opinion, makes the process altruistic. When people are working together I think it may be easier to come to a rational decision. A rational decision should turn out to be ethical. Since no specific ethical paradigm is indicated, one may use a preferred methodology of acting ethically. A Christian ethical worldview would easily fit into Rost’s (1993) leadership process.

Conclusion

While my leadership process is not yet fully formed, I do believe that I would want to use a Christian ethical process. Right now I think an ethical process would fit easiest into Rost’s (1993) leadership process. My ethical leadership paradigm would involve treating other people as I would want to be treated. I need to consider others before myself. I would want to act altruistically. I do not believe that acting selfishly serves anyone’s best interests. I think that I could easily use the Ten Commandments as place to begin to formulate my process. However, I think I would need to incorporate Hill’s (1997) principles of holiness, justice and, love into my process. I think there are times when I would consider the needs of an entire group and other times when I would consider the needs of an individual. I do not think that all ethical decisions follow a clear-cut pattern. There is no such thing as “cookie cutter” ethics. I believe that to make an ethical decision I must take into consideration all aspects of the decision. I am a consequentialist. That means that I consider the consequences of my actions prior to acting. I feel strongly that making ethical decisions is not a black and white process. Indeed, there are multiple varied shades of gray. Most ethical decisions do not have a clear-cut answer. In order to ferret out justice I must look carefully at all the options before I act. While I do not hold a formal leadership job, I do act frequently as an informal leader. I believe that, after reviewing all of the ethical processes, I may be able to make ethical decisions I a more organized manner. I firmly believe that ethics should be an integral part of an excellent leadership process. If I want to develop an exquisite leadership process I need to carefully include ethics.