Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Becca, hindsight certainly is 20-20. It’s considerably easier to label leaders’ actions as unethical or label the leaders themselves that way from the vantage point of the present, but as Terry L. Price explains the content of morality isn’t clear, especially when decisions are actually being made. As students of history we have the advantage of knowing the outcomes of people’s actions those outcomes generally color our view of the events that caused them. Price explains that we also unnecessarily assume that leaders share the same understanding of morality that their followers do. The assumption is ridiculous considering that philosophers argue about the content of morality till this very day. Leaders and followers can also disagree on the scope of an immoral act. Naturally, times arise when deviating from morality has positive consequences we hope will outweigh the immoral means used to achieve them. Leaders, due to their position, have greater access to resources. They commit the same small infractions that we do, for example David lusting after another man’s wife, but on a greater scale, for example David sending the woman’s husband to die in battle. It is easier how leaders can confuse the scope of their morality or lack thereof from the cognitive perspective.


1) Does the cognitive explanation of ethical failures apply to JFK and the Bay of Pigs?
2)How can we/ do we have to educate leaders about ethics?

1 comment:

  1. Diarra, I agree with your point about leaders performing on a greater scale, compared to followers. In examining the mistakes that a leader makes, we may want to lower our expectations of leader's morality and erase the myth of the flawless leader.

    ReplyDelete