Few leaders act ethically, but act according to political necessity. Is that necessarily wrong except when leaders are actively corrupt or pursue violent ends? Isn't it important for leaders to just be effective?
Yes, it is necessary for leaders to always act ethically if they really think about the progress of their nation and the world as a whole. For that leaders have to really serve the people and have to sacrifice their own selfish wills, agenda and comforts.
Stanley, I do have ideas but my problem is my busy schedule! Briefly, leaders may lead during periods of peace, war, upheavals, social unrest, etc. Some are secular while others rule with religious zeal. Some are transformative and leave great legacies while others destructive and focused on self preservation. Luck produced President Truman and Johnson in the USA that left a legacy of the first nuclear weapon use and important civil rights legislations. Many may have to act unethically to protect the national interests or achieve certain agendas. In my view, it is the collective actions and circumstances that define success and failure. There is no clear, simple, pure and clean answer. Thus, it is not always possible that they always act ethically. This is why it is such a good and complex question. Amir
Since ethics depend at least to some extent on the context and even the observer, there's no way for a leader (or anyone for that matter) to truly always act ethically at all times. Some obvious things should naturally be avoided but for most "sins", aren't there cases where exceptions have been made for the greater good? History praises the great rulers like Alexander the Great, despite the wars and conquering.
Beautiful question, thank you!
What is the meaning of the term 'leader'?
The person lead his/ her followers to the desired goal is a leader.
So, unethical leader can lead the followers to some unethical goal. Probably by unethical means through unethical way.
Ultimately followers will be like their leader.
Practically it is happening.
good perspective by Shibabrata Pattanayak but reality isn't just black and white.
I deliberately did not actually clarify 'leadership', so again the question is open.
What is also not clarified is 'ethics', but thankfully it is slowly being done here.
My belief is that some notion of ethics of leadership is possible and required. Amir, this was done in Gilgamesh, so perhaps that is a start.
A good resonse, Farid, but I doubt that politicians have a monopoly on lack of ethics.
Surely, we must look at what they mean or meant to achieve, that is means and motivation?
It is a good answer but in fact I deliberately put 'leader' to widen the debate. But one difference between business leaders and politicians is that the former have a worked-out ethical position, which I've taught, and the latter have known.
That should be none, not known. This site functions a bit as a conspiracy of typos. Odd!
Worth considering an ethical system for politicians outside of the rules of each institution-such as Parliament.
Where an ethical system for politicians is concerned, as business people have one, we can start at no better place than the Sumerian king/hero Gilgamesh. His epic, begun probably in the 3rd millennium, concerns, amongst other matters, ideal kingship. Gilgamesh begins as a thuggish ruler, raping brides, bullying men, and through a series of adventures 'grows up' and understands his role is to nurture his people, that he was responsiblities.
Configured here is the ideal ruler/king, one who cares for those he rules creating thereby an ethics of rule.
It is necessary leaders act ethically at all times. Besides the basis for which they win elections is to uphold basic ethical tenets and to act in such a way that their individual desires will not supersede the wishes and aspirations of the electorate. If by political necessity you mean unethical compromise, then a leader ought not to swayed into acting based on political necessity. But I don’t think political necessity should run in contradiction to basic ethical necessity.
Acting in accordance with political necessity is sometimes the moral thing to do. E.g. a leader may need to have his nation wage war, engage in violent resistance, engage in vilification, etc. for the greater good, even if doing so involves some harm to innocent others. It all depends on the nature of the action and the nature of the goal, and whether the end justifies the means, which it surely sometimes does, even if the means have an unsavory side. Undesirable is not the same as unethical.
Karl, I agree that the connection between goodness and ethics is overstated.
I remember a Christian acquaintance of mine who refused to lie. He saw that as an essential part of Christian belief and goodness. His non-lying habitually caused others harm. He was a walking disaster. In effect, his own sense of well-being was more important to him than the suffering of his friends.
Those who refuse to fight may cause harm to others, except that the nature of fighting is also crucial to any argument. We are close here to the good of the few, against that of the many that by itself proved unethical.
Is a truly ethical leader a truly efficient one, if leading is an ethical value-that is achieving results, meeting needs of followers-then that separates a leader's ethics from 'goodness'? A leader has to succeed-or get as close as possible to agreed success.
Is it necessary for leaders to always act ethically?
Think it depends on the leader's personal moral philosophy e.g. Kantiansim or Utilitarianism etc. If s/he subscribes Kantianism, s/he might not let political agenda to impact his / her ethicality. If s/he subscribes Utilitarianism, s/he might adjust his / her ethicality according to the highest utility s/he perceives.
The second is the most common, depending and how dependent the country is on other countries.
Every principled leader demonstrates some kind of ethical philosophy as Prof. Han has discussed in his interesting comment. Great leaders (Kantian philosophy) have always maintained steadfastness to what is 'morally right' no matter the pressures from subjects and external bodies (example, refusal to pass gay and lesbian rights).
Sometimes, it becomes imperative that a leader adjusts his personal moral code if s/he is disillusioned. In such cases, he must be flexible to listen to the views of others (subjects and members of his advisory body).
In any of such scenarios, ethics play a key role in governance. Great leaders must know when and how to apply them to heighten their governance.
Stanley,
I would add a further evaluation in your question based on ethical judgment. How do we judge whether the person in question acted ethically under imperfect knowledge?
Under our usual ethical judgment, we argue unknowingly based on our own ethical view (Colton's mention of context) and under post facto information. How do we fairly assess the circumstance under which the person acted.
Arturo, you are quite right of course. We see a person's actions from a distance and incomplete knowledge.
Lets state one possible position on this: a leader has a political choice to make, and as he or she is human many actions are considered. Observers can successfully predict such choices. This may involve direct action of a certain kind, or waiting for further developments. The ethics chosen may be to do with loss of life, territory, resources or revenue. The impact on citizens could be considerable. Any choice might/would be ethical even if the choice were based on business, if the choice is referenced to the effects on others.
There are other ways of considering these matters, but this is one.
Yes, it is necessary for leaders to always act ethically if they really think about the progress of their nation and the world as a whole. For that leaders have to really serve the people and have to sacrifice their own selfish wills, agenda and comforts.
They need not act ethically tough that supposed to be the norm because politicians in most cases do not act straight! In LDCs of Africa and other places they speak with one mouth and act differently. That has been the nature of Nigerian politicians in my country.
Currently President Donald Trump of America is bring accused of unethical issues like lying, leaders act unethically except one out of a million!
A code of conduct for politicians is necessary. They have to respect the rules of ethics, specially about vested interests, conflict of interests and in general, corruption.
Strong leadership often connects to one ethical direction. The Turkish leader may for example be genuinely concerned with the primacy of religion and sees it as ethical to pursue that end, whether it affects others badly or not, or if his country suffers or not. Putin may see it ethical to enhance Russian power-whether others die as a consequence. Ethics here is considered as a general or specific good, its affects local or undetermined.
Sebastain, I will look at all, but for all I am looking for, and hoping for, a proper consideration of ethics for leaders-not necessarily ones we accept but based on philosophical ideas. For example, Utilitarianism and Authoritarianism and collating them together.
I am using Rawls' method:
So: does a leader need to act fairly-
Then the notion of 'fairly' must be understood outside of dictionary definitions. Good by religious definitions (which religion?)-is there any firm and collective understanding of good? Etc-
Arben, your recommendation that ''a leader's deeds should be within the limits of morality ...as a role model for the citizens of the country or the human capital of the organization/institutions/business'' often does not hold waters. What is usually seen is the opposite. We see in our world leaders who rule with impunity, corrupt and unethical leaders and human beings and the people seem to like them, liars in leadership! This because most people are naturally disposed to that especially in 3rd countries of Africa. How do you see that?
I totally agree with Artur, that politicians have to respect the rules of ethics, specially about vested interests, conflicts of interests and in general, corruption.
Then, Putin and Turkish leaders need to moderate in their style of leadership.
But why, Sebastain?
If say not noting 'conflicts of interests' aids a country's economy, why not? A good economy can or should have knock on affects.
Fair enough, Arben, because autocratic leadership comes under a particular understanding, not withstanding bad examples. In the 2nd World War the UK leadership, mainly Churchill, made what today are questionable moral decisions-heavy bombing of German cities (the annihilation of Dresden)-afterwards described as war crimes. So:
Were they within ethical bounds as retaliation to German assaults on UK, even though the UK began such activity?
Was it ethically permitted as it ended the war quickly ( this is disputed by many)?
Did it positively affect UK morale at times required? Therefore was ethical because the war was conducted against an 'evil'' regime. Henceforth the term 'evil' needs to be continuously debated when concerning actions against another group.
In the end, does defence constitute an ethical model in war or violence in general? Does war have separate ethical standards from peace?
Such a good question to ask, and as always the answer “depends”. I think it helps to think from a certain perspective such as one defined by the discipline of science you’re going to evaluate your findings or staying interdisciplinary but at least defining your constructs first. How does ethics come to play in this aspect? Is it essentially an objective, universal set of truths or a subjective representation of it, or better yet, a personal ideal? Assuming you’re more interested in asking about “the greater good” interpretation of morality, I would refer you to the social influence and political psychology literature wherein leadership is socially constructed by societal expectations (i.e. injunctive & descriptive norms) that dictate who is likely to succeed at influencing their crowd. The leaders, then, are emerging because they can satisfy societal demands (i.e. masculinity, aggression at certain times such as times of political and economic instability, religious if the society feels a need etc)
I agree too with Dr. Stanley Wilkin.
I believe that ethical behavior must be a behavior of its own or inherent in the condition of a leader. I understand leading a person who has public or private responsibility under his responsibility. Ethics is not a marginal issue in the political exercise, rather it must be fundamental in political action. Ethics does not quarrel with political interests, it is disputed when these interests do not overcome public scrutiny or avoid being transparent in their aspirations.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics