Ethical Self Reflection Essay

AbstractIn many a nonher(prenominal) cases, a individual must choose between two or more(prenominal) rights that whitethorn or whitethorn non align with two unitys deterrent example and ethical standards. The cargon- base, rule-based, ends-based sentiment to arrive at a decision rather than rationalizing after the fact atomic number 18 essential for analyzing ethical predicaments (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012, pp. 164-165). The self-reflection essentialed to identify mavins fundamental nature, and to envision the cleans, morality and set ane uses to make decisions are searing to neat an authentic attractor who is a moral manager that serves the people that bond him or her (Hughes, et.al, pp. 152-153).Ethical Self ReflectionWhat is right? Morals lay individualized character related to the ideas of twain right and rail at. ethical motive, go inherently linked to morals and ones moral bargains, is a send of moral principles used in a hearty system in wh ich those morals are applied. In other words, ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs. These standards could be internal ethics, social ethics, company ethics, professional ethics, or even family ethics. So while a persons moral code is usu on the wholey unchanging, the ethics he or she practices can be open on exogenic factors non controlled by the individual or the group to which the individual belongs. Care-based thinking spots what is commonly referred to as the Golden Rule, Do unto others as you want others to do to you, of conduct and is most closely aligned with Aristotles writings concerning happiness. Aristotle writes in Nichomachean Ethics that, If happiness is activity in accordance with virtue, it is reasonable that it should be in accordance with the highest virtue and this depart be that of the trump intimacy in us (Aristotle, 1992, p. 7).Thus the idea of ethics does not bewilder with the morals of ei ther right or wrong, save starts with the premise that we all desire what is good or what seems so to us (Brennan, 1992, p. 64).Happiness, then, is to live in an objectively good way according to several virtues that conform to the best and most complete aspects of human activity including wisdom, knowledge, courage, self-control, magnanimity, and honorable ambition (Brennan, pp. 65-67). These virtues describe the character of a good person whose acts are ethically free, not compelled voluntary and not forced. Unlike Aristotles character based ethics, Immanuel Kant proposes a rule-based thinking that actions of true moral worth are through with(p) when a person does the right thing because it is right and not for what benefit the person can get out of the act (Hughes, et.al, p. 165).This type of thinking generally negates the external factors that may influence a persons object to wiegh the decision to act based on the greatest hapiness provided to thegreatest number of people. When one harbors the results or consequences of an act into consideration moreso than the acts rightness or wrongness, then the act can be said to be based on ends-based thinking (Hughes, et.al, p. 165). This thinking is largely based on Utilitariansim proposed by JohnStuart Mill in 1863 who defines it as The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they work to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to prove the happiness. By happiness is intended plea sure, and the absence of pain by unhappiness, pain, and the want of pleasure (Mill, 1863, pp. 9-10).Mill, however, did not propose that the ends of an action vindicatoryified the gist, for justice, to Mills, is paramount to the existence of good organizations and societies (Mill, pp. 42-43). The principle of ends-based thinking or utilitarianism requires that each person numbering for as much as the next, and that no single man or woman should be made to suffer injustice in tack to increase the happiness of all the rest (Brennan, p. 98). Determining why we state what we are termination to say why we do what we are going to do and why we feel what we feel in an ethical dilemma presupposes that moral choice is rational. However, man is not a rational wight he is a rationalizing animaland one of the strongest things to believe is the abysmal abstruseness of human stupidity (Heinlein, 1953, p. 18). This Sartrean brand of existentialism is based on the idea that we act first, and then look around for reason afterward (Brennan, p. 122).This rationalizing does not operate at the level of our feature behavior alone. We, as social animals, are prone to adaptto the reality as others find it. We tend to conform, even if, when rationally examined, the reality of the group does not make finger. To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man (Shakespe are, Hamlet, Act I scene 3, 78-82). Shakespeare provides Polonius a voice that resonates clearly in present contexts the richness of being true with ones morals and virtues. True, not in the Elizabethan sense of making certain you had your home and finances in order to allow you to get around help others, but true in a sense of Platos maxim Know Thyself. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose name is potently associated with the Enlightenment movement, believed that the knowledge of oneself is the beginning of wisdom (Brennan, J., p.75). Gaining this knowledge requires self-reflection. Reflection connect changed awareness with changed action. Reflection is a valuable part of any worthy effort.When one takes the time to thoughtfully reflect about an experience, one is condition the opportunity to learn from it, to enjoy success, beneathstand failures, and to gain insights that will be helpful to you in future activities The knowledge of self is essential to alter leaders and pursual wh o aspire to lead to clarify their own values as they model the way for others to follow (Barry P., Kouzes J., 2012). However, lifting the cloud of the false personal perceptions we all build from the front of our observation lenses is no easy task. Our implicit prejudices, in-group favoritism, claims of imagined credit and misjudged conflicts of interest are the fuel to the clouds that provide us an over-inflated sense of self-importance (Hughes R.L., et al., 2012, pp. 161-163) Simple self-reflection or introspection is useful when we are difficult to decide to make for dinner. During the 2012 Human Capital Institute (HCI) Learning and attracter Development Conference, BG (Ret) Thomas Kolditz said that, You cant convey in 30 seconds what you havent been in 30 years (Fakalata, 2012).Whether a leader is in a corporate boardroom, watching the companys price point per share fall so low that you need a special ticket into the New York Stock Exchanges stinking underbelly to see how fa r it really sunk, or whether a leader is watching his ladder and hose crews battle an industrial chemic fire near a suburban Alabama community, the situations that test lead are also the events that produce competent and selfless leaders determined by moral obligation and social conscience (Kolditz, 2007). Likewise, these samesituations produce the corporate and local government villains that are ridiculed for their selfishness, incompetence, inattentiveness and greed. Motive provides one the reason for doing something and may be considered the why that inspires the what needs to be done (Covey, 2006, p. 78). Values are constructs representing generalized behaviors or states of affairs that are considered by the individual to be important (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012, p. 152).With these definitions in mind, one may deduce that values what is important to us guide us to adopt motives that become visible to others through our behavior towards and with others to complete the what needs to be done. subjection to a leader is engendered when followers can place their full affirm in leaders who are perceived as persons with high moral integrity (Wakin, 1976, p. 587). The moral obligations one has influences the values that drive us toward a certain set of motives that cause us to take action under varying circumstances. Leaders who are consistent with their behaviors with respectfulness to their perceived moral obligations are viewed as having high moral integrity and worthy of blaspheme. The great power of a person to lead a group is often dependent on the culture and the groups beliefs in right and wrong the ethical climate (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, p. 155). For example, a person who values money, reducing expenses, realizing profits, and maximise business opportunities is motivated by finance or fiscal wealth.This person, tip a group that values devotion to duty, hard work, and respect for authority, may experience difficulty because the values are not share and will seldom align to the tradition that motivates the group being led. The financial leader in a group of traditionalists may be viewed negatively because the obtaining financial success is considered the wrong why to do work that requires from the groups perspective duty, loyalty, hard work and respect. In any context where leadership is a critical component to success, moral absolutists whose values reflect strict adherence to a defined rule-based thought process may be viewed as hardy and hide-bound. Likewise, a pragmatist or a person that uses end-based thinking to justify actions may be viewed as one who uses any method to expediently discover the organizations goals and objectives. In either case, the appellation of absolutist or pragmatist may be viewed as a pejorative depending on what values are shared by the followers and the organization.However, neithermoral archetype explanation is qualified when dealing with human actions and the values that dr ive the motives behind these actions. Truth-telling, promise-keeping, preservation of life, respect for property may not be absolute moral obligations, but they are not relative either. Rather, as Hughes describes, the situation significantly influences both the priority of moral obligations and the leadership interaction between the leader and followers in a particular situation (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, p. 26). In terms maybe more easily understood, moral obligations like promise-keeping may be at odds, depending on the situation, with an equal universal obligation like preserving life. Neither obligation is absolute and neither is relative, however circumstances may arise when one must prioritize the obligation that shapes what one values and provides the motive to take action. Leadership is about getting results in a way that inspires trust (Covey, 2006, p. 40).Trust of oneself, trust in the relationships we have with our constituents and the organization of which we are part . The means to accomplish a task and get the expected results are just as important as the ends. Leaders possessing a set of morals consistent with the ethics of a given society (organization) are better able to get results in a way that maintains or increases trust. The non-conformists and the dissidents who openly oppose dominant social attitudes and ideologies are not necessarily more correct or more rational. But we might take their disapproval as an opportunity for honest self-reflection and examination of even our most dearly held views of ourselves and our society. Congruence with morals, values, motives and behavior results in what we might call integrity. There are no gaps between what the person believes and how they act, and therefore we can trust that actions are done in accordance with who the individual really is.ReferencesAristotle. (1992, January 3). Nichomachean Ethics. The Internet Classics Archive, X. (D. C. Stevenson, Ed., & W. D. Ross, Trans.) Cambridge, MA, fall in States. Retrieved from http//classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/nicomachaen.html Brennan, J. G. (1992). Foundations of Moral Obligation The Stockdale Course. Newport, RI Naval War College Press. Covey, S. (2006). The Speed of Trust The unitary Thing ThatChanges Everything. New York, NY Free Press. Heinlein, R. A. (1953). Assignment in Eternity. NY, New York Baen print Enterprises. Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (2012). Leadership Enhancing the Lessons of Experience. New York, NY McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. London, England Parker, Son and Bourne. Retrieved from https//play.google.com/store/books/details?id=lyUCAAAAQAAJ&rdid=book-lyUCAAAAQAAJ&rdot=1 Wakin, M. M. (1976). The Ethics of Leadership. American Behavioral Scientist (Pre-1986), 19(5), 567-588. Retrieved from http//search.proquest.com/docview/194626859?accountid=12871