Ethical Self Reflection Essay

sneakIn m all cases, a soul must choose between two or more(prenominal) justs that may or may not array with some(prenominal) angiotensin-converting enzymes clean and ethical standards. The c ar-based, rule-based, ends-based intellection to arrive at a decision rather than rationalizing after the accompaniment ar necessary for analyzing ethical dilemmas (Hughes, Ginnett, & adenine Curphy, 2012, pp. 164-165). The self- springion needed to identify angiotensin converting enzyme and only(a)s fundamental nature, and to conceive the goods, ethics and values one uses to confound decisions are critical to becoming an authentic returner who is a ex adenosine monophosphatele manager that serves the people that total him or her (Hughes, et.al, pp. 152-153).Ethical Self consideratenessWhat is rectify? Morals define personal char telephone numberer related to the minds of both right and scathe. Ethics, while inherently linked to chastes and ones moral obligations, is a set of moral principles used in a affectionate system in which t irrigate morals are applied. In separate words, ethics point to standards or codes of demeanour expected by the chemical assembly to which the individual belongs. These standards could be national ethics, social ethics, company ethics, professional ethics, or even family ethics. So while a persons moral code is usually unchanging, the ethics he or she pr proceedingices commode be dependent on exogenous factors not controlled by the individual or the crowd to which the individual belongs. Care-based thinking describes 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 align with Aristotles writings concerning happiness. Aristotle writes in Nichomachean Ethics that, If happiness is exertion in accordance with virtue, it is reasoncapable that it should be in accordance with the spunkyest virtue and this go forth be that of the best thi ng in us (Aristotle, 1992, p. 7).Thus the idea of ethics does not begin with the morals of both right or wrong, but 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 jibe to several virtues that conform to the best and most complete aspects of humans activity including cognition, 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 consummations of true moral deserving are through with(p) when a person does the right thing be try 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 mostly negates the external factors that may influence a persons incl ination 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 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 belief which accepts as the foundation 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 produce the happiness. By happiness is intended plea sure, and the absence seizure of pain 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 means, for justice, to Mills, is paramount to the creation of good organizations and societies (Mill, pp. 42-43). The principle of ends-based t hinking or utilitarianism requires that each person count for as much as the next, and that no single man or woman should be made to corroborate injustice in order to increase the happiness of all the quell (Brennan, p. 98). Determining wherefore we say what we are going to say wherefore we do what we are going to do and why we regain 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 abysmal depth of human stupidity (Heinlein, 1953, p. 18). This Sartrean brand of existentialist philosophy is based on the idea that we act first, and then look close to for reason afterward (Brennan, p. 122).This rationalizing does not operate at the level of our protest behavior alone. We, as social animals, are prone to adapt to the mankind as others find it. We tend to conform, even if, when rationally examined, the reality of the meeting does no t make sense. 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 clear in present contexts the importance of being true with ones morals and virtues. True, not in the Elizabethan sense of making trustworthy you had your home and finances in order to allow you to better support others, but true in a sense of Platos axiom Know Thyself. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose name is strongly 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 links changed awareness with changed action. Reflection is a rich part of any worthwhile effort.When one takes the time to mindfully reflect about an experience, one is given the opportunity to learn from it, to enjoy success, understand failures, and to gain ins ights that will be helpful to you in future activities The knowledge of self is essential to enable pencil leaders and pursuit who 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 card lenses is no easy task. Our implicit prejudices, in-group favoritism, claims of imagined credit and misjudged conflicts of interest are the terminate 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 trying to decide to make for dinner. During the 2012 Human bully Institute (HCI) Learning and Leader Development Conference, BG (Ret) Thomas Kolditz said that, You cant become in 30 seconds what you havent been in 30 years (Fakalata, 2012).Whether a leader is in a corporal boardroom, watching the companys price point per share polish so low that you need a special ticket into the youthful York Stock Exchanges stinking underbelly to see how outlying(prenominal) it really sunk, or whether a leader is watching his ladder and hose crews battle an industrial chemical fire near a suburban Alabama community, the situations that test leadership are also the events that produce fitting and selfless leaders driven by moral obligation and social conscience (Kolditz, 2007). Likewise, these same situations 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, & international ampere Curphy, 2012, p. 152).With these definitions in mind , one may surmise 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. Loyalty to a leader is engendered when pursuit can place their full trust 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 invariable with their behaviors with respect to their perceived moral obligations are viewed as having high moral integrity and worthy of trust. The ability 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 maximizing business opportunities is make by finance or fin ancial wealth.This person, leading a group that values devotion to duty, hard work, and respect for authority, may experience trouble because the values are not shared 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 uncompromising 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 achieve the organizations goals and objectives. In either case, the appellation of absolutist or pragmatist may be viewed as a pejorative depending on what values ar e shared by the followers and the organization.However, neither moral archetype explanation is sufficient when dealing with human actions and the values that drive the motives behind these actions. Truth-telling, promise-keeping, preservation of life, respect for property may not be inviolable 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 perhaps 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. lead is about getting results in a way that inspires trust (Covey, 2006, p. 40). institutionalise of oneself, trust in the relationships we have with our constituents and the organization of which we are part. The means to fulfil 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 pair dominant social attitudes and ideologies are not necessarily more amend or more rational. But we might 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 individ ual 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 integrity Thing ThatChanges Everything. New York, NY Free Press. Heinlein, R. A. (1953). Assignment in Eternity. NY, New York Baen publication 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), 56 7-588. Retrieved from http//search.proquest.com/docview/194626859?accountid=12871