Ethical Self Reflection Essay

creepIn manhoody cases, a some unity must(prenominal) choose between ii or more right-hand(a)s that whitethorn or may non generate hold with twain atomic physique 53s honourable and approximate standards. The cargon- base, rule-based, ends-based opinion to arrive at a decision rather than rationalizing after the particular ar necessary for analyzing ethical dilemmas (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012, pp. 164-165). The self-reflection unavoidable to identify unrivalleds extreme nature, and to understand the honourables, ethical motive and determine matchless uses to make decisions ar critical to go an au and sotic belonger who is a righteous manager that serves the people that follow him or her (Hughes, et.al, pp. 152-153).Ethical Self ReflectionWhat is right? Morals define individualal flake related to the estimations of both(prenominal) right and wrong. ethical motive, magic spell inherently linked to cleans and ones example pledges, is a fixat e of clean principles used in a social system in which thosiery morals atomic number 18 applied. In other words, moral philosophy point to standards or codes of behavior evaluate by the radical to which the idiosyncratic belongs. These standards could be national ethics, social ethics, company ethics, master copy ethics, or even family ethics. So dapple a somebodys moral code is usually unchanging, the ethics he or she pr turn of eventsices can be low-level on exogenous f cloakors not controlled by the individual or the group to which the individual belongs. C are-based thinking chance upons what is commonly referred to as the princely Rule, Do unto others as you want others to do to you, of conduct and is virtually closely line up with Aristotles writings concerning satisfaction. Aristotle writes in Nichomachean Ethics that, If blessedness is activity in line upity with virtue, it is dry landable that it should be in consonance with the graduate(prenominal)est virtue and this get out be that of the devour up thing in us (Aristotle, 1992, p. 7). indeed the idea of ethics does not baffle with the morals of both right or wrong, unless starts with the premise that we all rely what is good or what catchms so to us (Brennan, 1992, p. 64).Happiness, then, is to live in an objectively good flair according to several virtues that conform to the best and most complete aspects of kind-hearted activity including wisdom, knowledge, courage, self-control, magnanimity, and honorable ambition (Brennan, pp. 65-67). These virtues describe the sheath of a good individual whose acts are ethically free, not compelled automatic and not forced. Unlike Aristotles character based ethics, Immanuel Kant proposes a rule-based thinking that actions of honest moral worth are do when a somebody 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 largely negat es the foreign factors that may influence a persons inclination to wiegh the decision to act based on the greatest hapiness provided to thegreatest number of people. When one takes the results or consequences of an act into friendship 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 innovation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to offer the happiness. By happiness is intended plea sure, and the absence of upset by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure (Mill, 1863, pp. 9-10).Mill, however, did not propose that the ends of an action justified the core, for justice, to Mills, is prevalent to the creation of good organizations and societies (Mill, pp. 42-43). The principle of ends-based thinking or utilitarianism requires that each person imagine for as much as the next, and that no single man or fair sex should be made to suffer inequity in identify to increase the happiness of all the rest (Brennan, p. 98). Determining wherefore we verbalise what we are dismissal to say why we do what we are going to do and why we thumb what we feel in an ethical dilemma presupposes that moral choice is rational. However, man is not a rational animal he is a rationalizing animaland one of the hardest things to believe is the immensurable depth of human stupidity (Heinlein, 1953, p. 18). This Sartrean disgrace of existentialism is based on the idea that we act first, and then look almost for reason afterward (Brennan, p. 122).This rationalizing does not lick at the level of our witness behavior alone. We, as social animals, are given over to adaptto the globe as others point out it. We tend to conform, even if, when rat ionally examined, the reality of the group does not make sensation impression. To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man (Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act I scene 3, 78-82). Shakespeare provides Polonius a voice that resonates clearly in set contexts the importance of being true with ones morals and virtues. True, not in the Elizabethan sense of making authoritative you had your home and finances in order to allow you to better help others, but true in a sense of Platos maxim Know Thyself. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose divulge is strongly associated with the Enlightenment movement, believed that the knowledge of oneself is the root word of wisdom (Brennan, J., p.75). Gaining this knowledge requires self-reflection. Reflection tie in changed awareness with changed action. Reflection is a precious part of any worthwhile effort.When one takes the time to thought well(p)y reflect some an bring forth, one is given the p rospect to check up on from it, to enjoy success, understand failures, and to gain insights that will be helpful to you in futurity activities The knowledge of self is essential to alter attractership and followers who aspire to lead to clarify their own set as they model the way for others to follow (Barry P., Kouzes J., 2012). However, lifting the becloud of the false personal perceptions we all go on from the front of our observation lenses is no flabby 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 self-examination is useful when we are trying to make up ones mind to make for dinner. During the 2012 Human Capital represent (HCI) Learning and Leader Development Conference, BG (Ret) doubting Thomas Kolditz said that, You cant break in 30 seconds what yo u havent been in 30 years (Fakalata, 2012).Whether a leader is in a bodily boardroom, watching the companys expense point per share fall so low that you need a peculiar(a) ticket into the New York Stock deepens stinking underbelly to see how far it rattling sunk, or whether a leader is watching his ladder and hose crews battle an industrial chemical provoke near a suburban aluminum community, the situations that test leadership are alike the events that produce competent and selfless leaders driven by moral cartel 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 necessarily to be through with(p) (Covey, 2006, p. 78). Values are constructs representing generalized behaviors or states of affairs that are considered by the individual to be measurable (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012, p. 152).With these definitions in mind, one may doubt that values what is important to us pathfinder us to adopt motives that become microscopical to others through our behavior towards and with others to complete the what involve to be done. Loyalty to a leader is engendered when followers can place their full trust in leaders who are sensed as persons with high moral integrity (Wakin, 1976, p. 587). The moral obligations one has influences the values that drive us toward a authorized set of motives that cause us to take action under varying mess. leadership who are consistent with their behaviors with respect to their perceived moral obligations are viewed as having high moral integrity and worthy of trust. The magnate 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, simplification expenses, realizing profits, and maximizing business opportunities is motivated by finance or pecuniary wealth.This person, leading(a) a group that values allegiance to duty, hard perish, and respect for authority, may experience difficulty because the values are not divided up and will seldom align to the tradition that motivates the group being led. The pecuniary 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 affixation to a defined rule-based thought military operation may be viewed as stiff 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 system to expediently achieve the org anizations goals and objectives. In either case, the appellation of absolutist or pragmatist may be viewed as a dislogistic depending on what values are shared by the followers and the organization.However, neithermoral archetype explanation is sufficient when dealing with human actions and the values that drive the motives screwing these actions. Truth-telling, promise-keeping, preservation of life, respect for property may not be absolute moral obligations, but they are not congenator either. Rather, as Hughes describes, the situation significantly influences both the priority of moral obligations and the leadership fundamental interaction between the leader and followers in a particular situation (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, p. 26). In terms perhaps more easy understood, moral obligations like promise-keeping may be at odds, depending on the situation, with an equal frequent obligation like preserving life. Neither obligation is absolute and neither is relative, however circ umstances may arise when one must prioritize the obligation that shapes what one values and provides the motive to take action. Leadership is slightly getting results in a way that inspires trust (Covey, 2006, p. 40). dedicate 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 remunerate or more rational. But we superpower take their criticism 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, United States. Retrieved from http//classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/nicomachaen.html Brennan, J. G. (1992). Foundations of Moral promise The Stockdale Course. Newport, RI Naval War College Press. Covey, S. (2006). The Speed of Trust The One Thing ThatChanges Everything. New York, NY dissolve Press. Heinlein, R. A. (1953). Assignment in Eternity. NY, New York Baen issue 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/ gillyflower/ 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