Hawkins
LEAD: 505 April 1, 2012
Ethics
and
Human
WellBeing
April 1
2012
This document will outline written course work by Korie Hawkins.
Through reading Ethics and Human Well-Being by E.J. Bond. She will
attempt to generate his ideas of ethics into what she perceives the
answer to the following question entails.
1
Does
leadership
require
selflessness or
sacrifice to be
moral?
Hawkins
LEAD: 505 April 1, 2012
Abstract
Utilizing information generated from E.J. Bond author of Ethics and Human Well-Being (1996)
and written work submitted throughout the course of MSL 505: Organizational Leadership
Ethics I will attempt to answer the posing question: Does Leadership require selflessness or
sacrifice to be moral?
2
Hawkins
LEAD: 505 April 1, 2012
Introduction
The overall scope of philosophy is not to take matter versus opinion, but to simply
acknowledge the information set forth and apply it according to self. Bond said, “Psychological
egoism is based on an easily discernible confusion of thought and opposing views are to be
expected.” My intentions are to layout an outline of what I conceived from the reading, and
construct a base for why I have concluded my opinion. My overall information streams from the
author, scholarly articles, and my own experience.
Synthesis
My overall objective is to outline with support from my course work, my overall
conclusion on whether or not leadership requires selflessness or sacrifice to be moral. To be
conceived as morally good or bad, one must first be judged by the commons. The judgment of
one is based off of conduct, and character. These two components infiltrate what is referred to by
Bond as, Eudaimonia. He states, “Eudaimonia is all the non-moral values that are worth a
person’s having, getting, or doing, and related to that person’s thriving, flourishing, happiness, or
well-being (p.119).” Concluding that morality set forth by the commons neither here nor there is
selfless or sacrificial, because we all are striving to be fulfilled morally.
Ethical Egoism
When it comes to matters of Ethics, one will often question, if people are out to help
others or better themselves through helping others? Bond clearly states (1996) “egoism” claims
that all human motivation is self regarding (p.8)” We as people have a set morality given our
surroundings. This morality sets the tone for our ethical egoism, and bottom-line how it can and
3
Hawkins
LEAD: 505 April 1, 2012
will be perceived. Referencing a situation I encountered with my district manager inquiring, “If I
liked to be praised?” My response was, “I am who I am with or without acknowledgements, so
praise is not required, but always accepted.” I received satisfaction in that moment because I
made her believe, I was fully equipped to lead/manage in my workplace. Concluding the
keyword is “motivation,” which is what is applied to psychological egoism. I related my personal
experience with the reading to provide the understanding framework of what I believe egoism is
and can be conceived as. The idea of psychological egoism to be true in everyday situations, it
just depends on how the message is received and decoded. Psychological Egoism displays
conduct and implies the over character of an individual.
Cultural Relativism
Cultural Relativism is the view that there is no overall morality view for humanity. The
view is different given the time and place. Bond says (1996) “It cannot be true by definition that
to be morally good is to do the done thing and never to do anything that is not done.” (p.24) My
experience leads me to believe, society sets forth our overall morality, of course aside from our
own beliefs. Cultural relativism is established through norms, and those norms formulate through
a given society. The norms are made up of other deciding factors such as religious beliefs,
government, laws, and so forth. Overall society builds the foundation of what morality
essentially is. Resulting in the cultures eudaimonia (well-being), and giving cultures a deonitc
way of living. According to Bond, deonitc is a dimension of morality establish through law. As
long as we follow those laws, we will be conducive to the commons. Morris Ginsberg (1970)
ask, who says that morality is universal in the formal sense that everywhere we find rules of
conduct prescribing what is to be done or not to be done (p.578)? Placing my position to side
with what cultural relativism entails Beyond Cultural Relativism by Martin Gardner reflects on
4
Hawkins
LEAD: 505 April 1, 2012
past civilization created and how “—the view that there are no standards of "good" and "bad"
other than the laws and customs of a given culture.” (p.38) It is our job as individuals to take
what we know as our own cultural relativism, be willing to share outside our culture, and be
open-minded to what others may share with us. Thus, building character and reevaluating our
conduct.
Subjective Relativism
Bond clarifies the differences between cultural and subjective relativism. Cultural
relativism deals with local ethical or morality matters versus subjective relativism deals with
morality being a personal matter. According to E.J. Bond, the driving force behind subjective
relativism “is precisely its rejection of what is seen as socially imposed morality.” (p.50) My
personal experience of subjective relativism would be considered my opinion. My opinion is formed
through my culture, experiences, and morality overall. In general, my subjective relativism streams from
whom I am as a person and what I stand for.
Being a Realist about Relativism (In Ethics) by Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, highlighted a very
important component, (1991) “To be a relativist in this sense is to hold that in many cases what's right or
wrong, obligatory or forbidden, good or bad, depends in some way on the circumstances - on what
expectations people have legitimately acquired, on what the available options are, on who will be
affected, etc. If that is all that is involved relativism remains fairly uncontentious.” (p.161) Allowing me
to conclude subjective relativism is one’s own opinion. So who am I to object to questions what Bond has
concluded? Not only that, but he has a valid point. Bond references Hitler’s actions against the Jews,
being justified due to Hitler’s overall relativism. If this is the case, then everyone is entitled to their own
relativism, and it is up to one’s self to determine how that relativism will play out morally and socially.
This will lead to the aretaic dimension of morality, it depicts virtues and vices.
5
Hawkins
LEAD: 505 April 1, 2012
Judgment of character will be questioned, which is why one will need to stop and consider the
overall eudaimonia of the commons. Relativism and Hutcheson’s Aesthetic Theory by Carolyn Wilker
Korsmeyer where he clearly states subjective relativism as wrong. The reading helped me realize in
general, subjectivism can lead to some dangerous things, and overall society has a lot to do with how we
have grown to separate the differences between our own self subjections relativism versus our whole
cultural relativism. My overall outlook concludes, subjective relativism is one’s own opinion and that
opinion is formulated through life’s experiences. Humans choose how they will utilize their subjective
relativism on a daily basis, and do so in order to please society majority of the time.
“Man is the measure of all things of those that are, that they are, and of those that are not,
that they are not,” according to Protagoras unfinished book Truths. Assuming my interpretation
is accurate, what Protagoras was articulating to his readers is simple. Meaning, man determines
one’s own reality, from that reality, man created one’s own morality. Through one’s morality
relativism is distinguished and set forth. Bond said it best (1996), “There are no moral truths,
only customs, beliefs, and practices.”
The force driving the ethical frame of subjective relativism is the mere idea an individual
can reject the moral concepts imposed by society. Unbeknownst to me, there is far more detail to
being subjective when it comes to matters of being a “subjective relativist.” I discovered one’s
morality is related to one’s personal conviction. A Subjective relativist overall frame of mind
looks to one’s own nature, God is not a factor. Subjective relativists rely on themselves, creating
their own morality, for which they are authority. Trusting in their own decisions, not being
deceptive to themselves, they therefore create their own moral reality. My decisions and moral
beliefs reside in biblical scripture, the Holy Bible, The Lord, and his son Jesus Christ. Therefore,
I would have to agree with Gordon C. F. Bearn article, Relativism as Reductio, the overall view
6
Hawkins
LEAD: 505 April 1, 2012
of subjective relativism seems like a mere assertion and can only be understood individually.
Bearn highlighted in his article, “A point of view for each person, is true for that person.” (p.391)
Tying the two together Bearn and Bond both emphasize and seem to agree on one thing, pure
subjective relativism is consciously right for oneself.
Emotivism
“It lies in you, not in the object. So that when you pronounce any action or character to be
vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution of your nature you have a feeling or
sentiment of blame from the contemplation of it. Vice and virtue, therefore, may be compar’d to
sounds, colours, heat and cold, which, according to modern philosophy, are not qualities in
objects, but perceptions in the mind...,” according to A Treatise on Human Nature (1739) by
David Hume.
The notion that moral language is utilized not to declare what persons attitudes are, but to
express them in a non-state mental way is ascribe to as, Emotivism. Non-cognitivist claim such
as these are neither true nor false. According to Bond (1996), moral utterances are expressions of
character, but theses expressions do not imply anything at all, these utterances are rather more so
like shouts and cries. Applying emotivism is not stating or affirming that he or she approves or
disapproves of something. These individuals are simply committed to a certain principle of
conduct; “Rather he or she is verbally but non-state mentally expressing or displaying (perhaps
to himself or herself) that attitude or that commitment,” according to Bond (1996).
The concept of emotivism is surprisingly sensible in my opinion. An individual says,
“this is good,” but it doesn’t necessarily mean that “it is good”. It just evokes actions in others to
apply that “this is good.” Emotivists matter-of-fact believe their claims are neither true nor false.
7
Hawkins
LEAD: 505 April 1, 2012
It is pure and never used to make statements of assertions. Despite the fact it can be used in a
persuasive matter of morality, it does not make one right or wrong. Meaning emotivist is judged
harshly on character, because of their use of language.
Prescriptivism
“I cannot prescribe for myself without prescribing for humankind in general and
therefore for myself,” according to Bond (1996). Stuart Hampshire (1949) established a metaethical theory tilted, Non-congnitivism: Prescriptivism. Prescriptivism is the ability to formulate
practical moral judgments that are applied to personal commitment and to the overall principles
set forth by man. These judgments contain imperative elements, and result in approval or
disapproval based off the overall morality possessed by mankind.
According to Prescriptivism and Rational Behaviour by J. C. Mackenzie (1968), “The
limits to the use of moral concepts, even the most general ones, are logical, not merely practical.
They are in no sense imposed upon each man by himself, but arise out of "the nature of things ".
Not anything can be held as a moral belief or principle, no matter what the state of mind of the
holder. The criteria for goodness and rightness are laid down, and no man is in a position to
decide for himself what these are.” In order for an individual to make a practical moral based
decision, one has to consult the overall morality of the universal. Meaning subjective relativism,
and egoism, and all the other theories prior to this particular one go out the window. It almost
seems impossible for an individual to even be qualified for such decision making. Prescriptivism
requires one to think universal and that requires one’s own personal morality to become
universalized by the approval or disapproval of all of mankind.
8
Hawkins
LEAD: 505 April 1, 2012
Mackenzie elaborates on prescriptivism by saying, “The pre-scriptivist claims that words
like 'good' and 'ought' have two sorts of meaning, descriptive and evaluative, that these are
logically distinct, and that therefore the individual remains free to make his evaluations on the
basis of descriptive criteria of his own choosing.” Meaning man is not capable of deciding for
themselves what is right or wrong when it comes to moral judgments. Prescriptivism and
Fairness by James P. Sterba align with Mackenzie article simply implying Hare’s theory to be
ignorant and not fully thought out.
Hare lacks the consideration of hypothetical situations, and the overall concept of
theories pertaining to one’s own environment or religious belief. What is right for one does not
necessarily mean, it is right for all. It is merely impossible to prescribe for an entire universe.
Hare needs to reevaluate his theory, and consider the overall scope of morality and what it
entails.
Is/Ought Distinction
During the eighteenth century David Hume claimed, that one could not logically
derive an “ought from an “is.” Hume said, “For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new
relation or affirmation, ‘tis necessary that it shou’d be observ’d and explain’d; and at the same
time that a reason should be given for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new
relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.” “Ought” subjects
an individual’s character to a particular action of moral obligation. This obligation has to involve
practical reasoning and be based on values that can be achieved by action and choice. Perceiving
this to be true, one cannot say that one “ought” to do something unless there is a reason behind it.
Meaning the course of action has value of gain or loss.
9
Hawkins
LEAD: 505 April 1, 2012
Further findings led to Ingmar Persson, A Consequentialist Distinction between What We
Ought to Do and Ought to Try. He said, “We may compare, and contrast, what we ought to do
with what we ought to believe. In the latter case, too, we could distinguish between what we
ought in the evidential sense - or ought rationally - to believe and what we ought in the factual
sense to believe, which is the truth.” (p.352) Unable to oppose is/ought distinction and the
overall systematic theoretical context of what it entails leads me to believe “ought” is a
subjective language. It is built around the establishment of what universal morality can be
implied as, what one’s values should be, and how one should or shouldn’t apply it. The overall
scope of is/ought distinction, reminds me of an egoism.
The is/ought distinction cannot be relevant useless one has practical reasoning on how it
is of value to another individual and provides some type of gain or loss. My connection between
the two may be inconceivable, but ultimately the moral aspect of what one “ought” to do requires
more reasoning.
Serving The Common Good
“Wherever there is a reason for a certain course of action, then one ought to take that
course of action unless there is some over-riding reason why one should not (p.118)” Bond’s
primary goal is to determine how moral ought judgment and other moral judgment might be
grounded in practical reason. Non-moral values in an important sense are not subjective. These
non-moral values are achievable by choice or action. Non-cognitivist claim differently, they
believe an individual just so happens to function with a particular attitude or commitments. I
found this to be contradictive, considering norms can be established by man, through various
media, education, jobs, and religious outlets as some of the many commons. According to the
10
Hawkins
LEAD: 505 April 1, 2012
authors of Common Fire: Lives of Commitment in a Complex World, society in non-conscious
ways conform to a certain way of life and the foundation of most lives are found around the new
commons. Many will argue; no one person has same values or beliefs. Nevertheless, our values
of thriving, flourishing, or happiness (pertaining to well-being) is a positive for all. E.J. Bond
believes, “Non-moral values attainable by choice are all related to one thing—the thriving,
flourishing, happiness, or well-being of the person whose choice it is (p.119)”
Eudaimonia, the concept consist of all non-moral values that decipher our course of
actions. Bond continues his concept by utilizing examples of kindness, trust, and promise
keeping to establish what most consider moral values. He elaborates on all these concepts, by
outlining moral value, and its effect on the individual and others. Values worth having, getting,
or doing must provide reason for self. But we cannot reach eudaimonia, without participating
with our communities. “We are not acting for our exclusively individual or personal self-interest
(p.129)” according to Bond. Meaning we are acting for the common good. The common good of
our community revolves around our own personal well-being. Therefore, making the source of
moral, non-moral and all value equivalent to eudaimonia. On the other hand, I am not sure
eudaimonia, is a quality all people posses.
Deonitc Morality
Kant formulated this dimension through the requirements established by moral law. In
turn concluding moral law was to be obliged, and through this an individual could gain worth.
The overall scope of deonitc seems conceivable, but yet at the same time questionable.
Deonitc consist of reasoning for or against a particular kind of action. This reason
determines the course of action to be morally required or obligatory. Unless reasoning
11
Hawkins
LEAD: 505 April 1, 2012
established by the commons does not permit justifiable. The simplest form of deonitc is the
moral code, which essentially outlines do’s and don’ts. The paradigm of deonitc according to
Bond is brought forth through the laws of the land (p.138). Presented to us by Moses, it outlined
morality, it terms of how we as beings should conduct ourselves.
Bond establishes the limitations of moral conduct by presenting various examples of
stealing and promise breaking. Either or cannot be justified, because ultimately the result is in
violation to the creditability of deonitc dimension. Ishtivadue Haji, Deonitc Morality and Control
says, “Deonitc morality consist of judgments that actions are right, wrong, or obligatory.” He
argues that “indeterminism cannot sanction judgment of moral responsibility (p.350.)” Meaning
one is not responsible for action surrounding their morality, but the overall judgments of the
commons that permit their course of action. In general, deonitc morality clarifies what one can
do and should never do; leaving my overall viewpoint of the dimension questionable.
Aretaic Morality
Aretaic as one of the three dimensions that make up morality, the dimension fails to
elaborate on the overall cultural aspect of evolving characterization. One may view bravery in
light of standing firmly on belief; another may believe it as going against belief. In order for my
position to be made, aretaic will have to clarify if all and any can assume good or bad character.
Aretaic morality is a cultural development associated with virtues and vices desirable and
undesirable by the commons. It distinguishes good or bad qualities of one’s character. Meaning
the overall attributes that characterize an individual reside in practical reasoning, one will either
be for or against eudaimonia (well-being). Vocabulary is the key component used to decipher
another’s characterization, and through this relativism and culture can be associated. The great
12
Hawkins
LEAD: 505 April 1, 2012
Albert Einstein once said, “Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has
himself read, not by what others tell him.” Robert F. Card, Journal of Value Inquiry, supports
this quote by clearly stating “we find it natural to explain differences in behavior by appealing to
different character traits. In this way, we live in the shadow of Aristotelianism about character (p.
475).”
In order to be classified or characterized as a virtuous individual one must act accordingly
to what others determine those traits as. To be vicing, can be debatable, considering there are
means as to why one is characterized in that notion. In many aspects the overall concept of
aretaic morality is designed for the common good. It requires the commons to classify someone
as value, and it also predetermines one’s character. Character is formulated through actions, and
actions are designed to portray exactly how we as human’s act. Aretaic morality cannot be built
around the eudaimonia of all, because it does not address the well-being of all involved.
Categorical Imperative
Categorical imperative basically states one should not do, what one would not want
another to do morally. Xiaomei Yang, Metaphilosophy says, “Moral requirements are the most
demanding, if not always overriding, standards for conduct, for interpersonal and intercultural
criticism.” Meaning this is an individualist concept way of thinking and overall the commons
factor if one is moral. Bond claims categorical imperative is the recognition of the reality of
other people, and the realization that things are no different from them than they are for us.
Categorical imperative helps create eudaimonia because it allows others to live comfortably.
Bond clearly states, “The good of the community is what is being aimed at, but the good of the
community is part of the good of every individual, and is seen as supreme value, which all other
value providing reasons for choice depends (p.177).”
13
Hawkins
LEAD: 505 April 1, 2012
Categorical imperative seems to grasp the grist of what one’s intentions are and need to
be in order to achieve both aretaic and deontic morality. One should act accordingly to his or her
own morality; in turn apply categorical imperative to ensure individual and social eudaimonia.
Conclusion
Through this reading I have learned about key components and theories that factor into
leadership and the over context regarding one’s ethics. Bond assisted me, in answering a very
vital question I wondered for so long. Why do I want to be a leader? Although it may be claimed
a self-regarding, being a leader is a virtue. The call to serve requires an individual’s morality to
be aware of others and the way they think. Even if they are an egoist, cultural relativist,
subjective relativist, all of these people make up our society. It is up to us as leaders to depict
how they utilize it. Human want to have eudaimonia, it is created by morality and how we as
people conduct ourselves. “The study of leadership is the study of how men and women guide
others through adversity, uncertainty, hardship, disruption, transformation, transitions, recovery,
new beginnings, and other significant challenges,” according to Jim Kouzes and Barry Posner.
Ethics and Human Well-Being served as a guide to exploring what morality is and consists of.
All the components connect to the eudaimonia of how humans function. Bond successful
persuades my overall opinion to believe leadership is neither selfless nor sacrificial, and to be
moral streams from one’s overall take on conduct and character. Creating eudaimonia for all, and
all who dwell in it, to achieve some type of leadership.
14
Hawkins
LEAD: 505 April 1, 2012
References
Bond, E. (1996). Ethics and Human Well-Being. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Bearn, G. C. (July 1985). Relativism as Reductio. In Minds (pp. 191-193). Oxford University
Press.
Card, R. E. (2004). Pure Aretaic Ethics and Character. The Journal of Value Inquiry , 473-484.
Daloz, L. A., Keen, C. H., Keen, J. P., & Parks, S. D. (1996). Common Fire lives of the
commitement in a complex world. Boston: Beacon Press.
Gardner, M. (1950). Beyond Cultural Relativism. Ethics , pp.38-45.
Ishtiyaque Haji, Deontic Morality and Control (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. xiv + 288.
Korsmeyer, C. W. (1975). Relativism and Hutcheson's Aesthetic Theory. Journal of the History
of Ideas , 319-330.
Lazari-Pawłowska, I. (1970). On Cultural Relativism. Journal of Philosophy , pp. 577-585.
Sayre-McCord, G. (1991). Being a Realist about Relativism (In Ethics). Philosophical Studies:
An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition , 155-177.
Mackenzie, J. ((Oct. 1968)). Prescriptivism and Rational Behaviours. The Philosophical
Quarterly , pp.310-319.
Persson,Ingmar.Utilitas,Sep2008,Vol.20Issue3,p348-355,8p;DOI: 10.1017/S0953820808003191
15
Hawkins
LEAD: 505 April 1, 2012
Sterba, J. P. ((Feb. 1976)). Prescriptivism and Fairness. Philosophical Studies: An International
Journal for Philosoph in the Analytic Tradition , pp. 141-148.
16