ETHICS MODULES

General instructions:

 You are required to read the learning contents of every module and investigate
through research for further understanding.
 Answer the exercises evidently, nor substantiate your stands based on the given
cases / problems.
 Submit your answers based on the exercises, encoded or handwritten, and
indicate the following:
o Name:
o Course:
o Module #:

Example:

Juan Diosdado BSA - 2

MODULE 1: Introduction and Conceptual Framework

Exercise 1

Exercise 2

 Deadline; on or before May 23, 2022

 @ College of the Agriculture & Forestry office.
 MODULE 1
Introduction and Conceptual Framework

Overview
This Module provides a brief introduction to the concepts of integrity and ethics. It is
designed to be used by the students who wish to investigate deeply, for conceptual clarity and
expose to ethical dilemmas and ethical decision-making. The concept of integrity has been
added in order to broaden the focus from the more traditional field of ethics. Combined, the
concepts of integrity and ethics provide a more comprehensive perspective - they allow us to
move beyond discussions about the difference between right and wrong, in order to focus on
relationships and behavior as well.

Throughout the Module, students will be introduced to concepts and thrown in at the
deep end by being asked to make decisions on what they would regard as the most ethical
solutions to dilemmas. Students will be guided through three major ethical theories, and
challenged to agree or disagree with them. Students should not be afraid to take a stance, as
this will enhance their learning and enjoyment of the Module.

Learning outcomes
 Understand and define the concepts of integrity and ethics;

 Describe three major theoretical approaches in integrity and ethics;

 Identify ethical dilemmas and apply different theoretical approaches; and

 Understand the concept of personal integrity in the context of this Module.

Learning content
The Module provides an overview of the concepts of integrity and ethics. Integrity is a term that
is used in many different contexts, for example by referring to information, art or music. From a
philosophical perspective discussion about integrity usually involve an ethical or moral
dimension, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Ordinary discourse about integrity involves two fundamental intuitions: first, that integrity is
primarily a formal relation one has to oneself, or between parts or aspects of one's self; and
second, that integrity is connected in an important way to acting morally, in other words, there
are some substantive or normative constraints on what it is to act with integrity. (Cox, 2017)

Integrity is defined as "strict adherence to moral values and principles" by the Chambers 21 st-
Century Dictionary (Chambers, 1999). The following discussion of integrity mentions the origin
of the word and different applications:

The concept of integrity has been derived from the Latin "integritas" (wholeness). It is defined as
consistency between beliefs, decisions and actions, and continued adherence to values and
principles. When someone is described as a person of integrity, the suggestion is that such a
person is not corruptible as a result of the "wholeness" and "connectedness" of the values and
principles that such a person subscribes to. Integrity is often used in conjunction with ethics,
suggesting that the values and principles that are adhered to should be ethical values. Some of
the values that are often mentioned in this regard are honesty, openness, accountability and
trustworthiness. Organizational integrity refers to the ability of individual organizations to
develop and implement an integrity management framework, and for employees to act in
accordance with the values of the organization. (Visser, 2007 p. 278)

Different types of integrity have been identified; the Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy includes the following:

 Self-integration refers to the ability of individuals to integrate various aspects of their own
personality into a harmonious whole.

 The identity view of integrity refers to the way in which individuals make commitments
about the things with which they deeply identify (in other words: acting in a way that
reflects their sense of who they are).

 The self-constitution view of integrity refers to actions that can be endorsed by oneself at
the time of acting as well as by a future self.

 Integrity as "standing for something" brings a social dimension into the definition: it
entails making judgement calls but also requires respect for the judgements of others.

 Integrity as moral purpose - this approach describes integrity in terms of a commitment

or a clear intent to live a moral life. It makes provision for others to disagree with the
views of an individual while acknowledging at the same time that she or he is a person of
integrity. (Cox, 2017)

Turning to the concept of ethics, Norman (1998, p. 1) has defined ethics as "the attempt to
arrive at an understanding of the nature of human values, of how we ought to live, and of what
constitutes right conduct." The dictionary definition of ethics is "the study or the science of
morals" (Chambers, 1999). Morality is defined as "a sense of right and wrong", and being moral
as "belonging or relating to the principles of good and evil, or right and wrong" (Chambers,
1999).

While this Module focuses mostly on Western philosophical thought, it is important to

acknowledge the critical contribution of non-Western philosophy. For example, the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following about Chinese ethical thought:

The tradition of Chinese ethical thought is centrally concerned with questions about how one
ought to live: what goes into a worthwhile life, how to weigh duties toward family versus duties
toward strangers, whether human nature is predisposed to be morally good or bad, how one
ought to relate to the non-human world, the extent to which one ought to become involved in
reforming the larger social and political structures of one's society, and how one ought to
conduct oneself when in a position of influence or power. The personal, social, and political are
often intertwined in Chinese approaches to the subject. Anyone who wants to draw from the
range of important traditions of thought on this subject needs to look seriously at the Chinese
tradition. (Wong, 2017)
One of the most important figures in this tradition is Confucius. He lived approximately between
551 and 479 BC and was a philosopher and founder of the Ru School of Chinese thought. His
teachings were preserved in the Lunyu or Analects. His approach is summarized as follows by
the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Confucius believes that people live their lives within parameters firmly established by Heaven-
which, often, for him means both a purposeful Supreme Being as well as 'nature' and its fixed
cycles and patterns-he argues that men are responsible for their actions and especially for their
treatment of others. We can do little or nothing to alter our fated span of existence but we
determine what we accomplish and what we are remembered for. (Riegel, 2013)

When we deal with difficult decisions, we often feel that there is no clear answer that is right, but
we sense intuitively that the decision is about the distinction between right and wrong.
Discussions about integrity and ethics address the fundamental distinction between right and
wrong. This type of decision is much more difficult than deciding whether we prefer one type of
food to another, or whether the answer to a simple mathematical equation is right or wrong.

Some people argue that we do not really have a choice whether we are ethical or not - this is
sometimes called "common morality". According to Blackburn (2002, p. 4): "Human beings are
ethical animals. I do not mean that we naturally behave particularly well, nor that we are
endlessly telling each other what to do. But we grade and evaluate, and compare and admire,
and claim and justify. We do not just 'prefer' this or that, in isolation. We prefer that our
preferences are shared; we turn them into demands on each other". Sissela Bok (1978, p. 23)
has argued that even liars share with those they deceive the desire not to be deceived.
Agreement with this statement indicates inherent support for the concept of integrity.

Within the context of an introductory module, it would be useful to look at a few interesting and
challenging examples. Robinson and Garratt (1997, p. 4) ask the following questions:

 Are there any differences between moral laws and society's laws? (This question will be
addressed in more detail in Module 12.)

 What are human beings really like: selfish and greedy or generous and kind?

 Are some people "better" at morality than others?

 Why should I be a good person?

These questions will inevitably generate vigorous debate, and they also address some of the
fundamental philosophical and theoretical questions addressed in this Module.

The moment we - as human beings - express a desire about the way something should be, we
use ethical language. By suggesting that something should be different, we are doing the
grading, evaluating and comparison that Blackburn refers to. We suggest that something could
be better, and by implication we support the idea that some things are better, more desirable or
more acceptable than others.

The graph below explains the role of theory - it helps us to understand the world, but theory by
itself cannot change the world; we need action. Action - and hopefully ethical action - will be
informed by theory. Any theory that addresses the way things should be or ought to be - as
mentioned above - can be classified as an ethical theory.

This Module will address three of the major Western ethical theories: utilitarianism, deontology
and virtue ethics. As was mentioned above, the critical contribution of non-Western philosophy
is acknowledged but not addressed in detail in this Module. Other modules of the present series
that discuss non-Western approaches to ethics include Module 2 (Ethics and Universal Values),
Module 4 (Ethical Leadership), and Module 5 (Ethics, Diversity and Pluralism). It is noted that
the approach known as ethics of care, while not discussed in this Module, is defined and
addressed in Module 9 (Gender Dimensions of Ethics) of the present module series.

 Utilitarianism

The basic premise of utilitarianism is that an action is moral if it maximizes the overall social
'utility' (or happiness). Two of the most important philosophers in this tradition are Jeremy
Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism, a form of consequentialism, requires an individual
to calculate the right response to an ethical question by weighing up the positive and the
negative consequences of an action. Whatever produces the most happiness for most people
will be the most ethical solution. It is important to note that the consequences should be
measured in terms of overall impact, not only in terms of the decision maker. All
consequentialist theories hold that morality depends on the consequence of actions.
Utilitarianism, as a specific case of consequentialism, holds that the rightness of an action
depends on whether it maximizes a particular consequence, that is, the overall social utility.
The shipwreck example (see Exercise 2) provides an easy way to demonstrate this approach.
Imagine that you are involved in a shipwreck situation - a ship has started to sink in the middle
of the ocean. Eleven people have jumped into a life-boat that has been designed for a maximum
of ten people, and the life-boat is also starting to sink. What should the passengers do?
According to the utilitarian approach, the answer is easy: ten lives saved will produce the most
social utility, and therefore - according to utilitarianism - killing one person is the ethical thing to
do.

 Deontology

The basic premise of deontology, in contrast to consequentialist theories like utilitarianism, is

that an action is moral if it conforms to certain principles or duties (irrespective of the
consequences). Deontology is derived from the Greek word deon, which means duty. The one
name that stands out from all others in terms of this approach is that of Immanuel Kant. The
following extract from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides a good summary of
Kant's position:

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) argued that the supreme principle of morality is a standard of
rationality that he dubbed the "Categorical Imperative" (CI). Kant characterized the CI as an
objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle that we must always follow despite
any natural desires or inclinations we may have to the contrary. All specific moral requirements,
according to Kant, are justified by this principle, which means that all immoral actions are
irrational because they violate the CI. (Johnson, 2018)

In layperson's terms, the Categorical Imperative can be compared and contrasted with what is
often described as the Golden Rule, one that can be found in many different cultural and
religious traditions: do unto others as you would want them do unto you. It is immediately
evident that this type of argument will provide solutions to ethical problems that are different
from a utilitarian approach. In the shipwreck example it is no longer possible to justify killing
someone, because the rule that can be deduced as universal is: do not kill. Therefore, no matter
what the consequences are, the morally correct answer would be not to kill anybody on the life-
boat.

 Virtue ethics

The basic premise of virtue ethics is that morality depends on perfecting one's character.
Different from utilitarianism (consequences) or deontology (duty), the emphasis is on the virtues
of the individual. Based on the ancient contribution of Aristotle (384 to 322 BC), virtue ethics
provides a more holistic approach to ethics. Stewart highlights the following characteristics of
virtue ethics:
  It is concerned with the person or agent behind the actions, rather than the actions
themselves.
 It considers aspects like emotions, attitudes, habits and lifestyle as morally relevant - the
way you are, rather than simply what you do, can be classified as good or bad.
 It argues that life is too complex to be guided by strict rules that dictate how we should
act.
 It is holistic - it examines the purpose of life rather than individual moments.
 It promotes the virtues as being beneficial to the owner: "Being virtuous is good because
it's good for you" (Stewart, 2009 p. 56).

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a virtue is "an excellent trait of character.
It is a disposition, well entrenched in its possessor - something that, as we say, goes all the way
down, unlike a habit such as being a tea-drinker - to notice, expect, value, feel, desire, choose,
act, and react in certain characteristic ways" (Hursthouse, 2016). Another term that is important
in virtue ethics is practical wisdom, the ability to do the right thing no matter what the
circumstance. Virtue ethics is very attractive because it provides a holistic approach, but it has
been criticized because of a lack of practical guidance. As Stewart explains, "When I ask what I
should do, virtue ethics tell me I should be virtuous. This is no help unless I know what the
virtues are and which one to apply in my situation. How can I get help with this? I'm told that a
virtuous person would be able to advise me … But what if I don't know any virtuous people?"
(2009, p. 69).

In summary, all three major Western ethical theories have strengths and shortcomings. There is
no confirmed "best theory" and individuals will have preferences and make their own choices.
All theories can be considered together to provide assistance to make a specific choice. Often
instinctive choices are made without reference to an ethical theory, although this could perhaps
be best explained by virtue ethics. One risk is to make a predetermined choice about a
preferred action, and then to find an ethical theory to justify a decision. Such an approach lacks
consistency, and hence also lacks integrity.

____________________________ooo0ooo________________________
Exercise 1: Personal values

Directions: Answer the following questions below. If possible, cite your personal experiences or
observations. (30 points)

Criteria:

Content – 5 points Originality – 5 points Total – 10 points each item.

Before you answer the question below, you need to know what, in general, values are.

Your values are the things that you believe are important in the way you live and work.

They (should) determine your priorities, and, deep down, they're probably the measures you
use to tell if your life is turning out the way you want it to.

When the things that you do and the way you behave match your values, life is usually good –
you're satisfied and content. But when these don't align with your personal values, that's when
things feel... wrong. This can be a real source of unhappiness.

This is why making a conscious effort to identify your values is so important.

1. How would you define your values?

2. How Values Help You?

3. Determine your top values, based on your experiences of happiness, pride, and
fulfillment. Do these values make you feel good about yourself? Would you be
comfortable and proud to tell your values to people you respect and admire? Do these
values represent things you would support, even if your choice isn't popular, and it puts
you in the minority?
Exercise 2: Shipwreck situation

Directions: Read the dilemma tale below, and discuss your stands substantially.

Criteria:

Content – 15 points Originality – 15 points Total – 30 points

This is a classic case in ethics theory: Imagine that you are involved in a shipwreck situation - a
ship has started to sink in the middle of the ocean. Eleven people have jumped into a life-boat
that has been designed for a maximum of ten people only, and the life-boat is also starting to
sink. What should the passengers do? Throw one person overboard and save ten lives? Or
stick to the principle of "do not kill", which means that everybody will drown? The lecturer can
invite contributions from the class and even take a vote, and then illustrate how different
theoretical approaches (e.g., utilitarianism and deontology) will lead to different solutions that
are both valid in terms of the particular approach.

Exercise 3: Case study (Baby Theresa)

Directions: Read the case below, and discuss your stands substantially.

Criteria:

Content – 15 points Originality – 15 points Total – 30 points

This full case is included in The Elements of Moral Philosophy (Rachels and Rachels, 2012).
The following is a summary of the case:

Summary: Baby Theresa was born in Florida (United States of America) in 1992 with
anencephaly, one of the worst genetic disorders. Sometimes referred to as "babies without
brains", infants with this disease are born without important parts of the brain and the top of the
skull is also missing. Most cases are detected during pregnancy and usually aborted. About half
of those not aborted are stillborn. In the United States, about 350 babies are born alive each
year and usually die within days. Baby Theresa was born alive. Her parents decided to donate
her organs for transplant. Her parents and her physicians agreed that the organs should be
removed while she was alive (thus causing her inevitable death to take place sooner), but this
was not allowed by Florida law. When she died after nine days the organs had deteriorated too
much and could not be used.

 How do we put a value on human life?

 What should one do when there is a conflict between the law and one's own moral
position about an issue?

 If you were in a position to make the final decision in this case, what would it be and
why?
References

Blackburn, Simon (2002). Being Good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bok, Sissela (1978). Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. Hassocks: The Harverster
Press Limited.

Cox, Damian and others (2017). Integrity. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N.
Zalta, ed.

Chambers 21 st Century Dictionary (1999). Edinburgh, Chambers.

Hursthouse, Rosalind and Glen Pettigrove (2016). Virtue ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta, ed.

Johnson, Robert and Adam Cureton (2018). Kant's moral philosophy. The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta, ed.

Norman, Richard (1998). The Moral Philosophers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Riegel, Jeffrey (2013). Confucius. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta,
ed.

Robinson, Dave and Chris Garratt (1997). Ethics for Beginners. Cambridge: Icon Books.

Stewart, Noel (2009). Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Visser, Wayne and others, eds. (2007). The A to Z of Corporate Social Responsibility.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Wong, David (2017). Chinese ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N.
Zalta, ed.

MODULE 2
 Ethics and Universal Values

Overview
This Module explores the existence of universal human values, which are those things or
behaviors that we believe should be privileged and promoted in the lives of all human beings. A
value is one of our most important and enduring beliefs, whether that be about a thing or a
behavior. Even though some values may be universal, they often arise from particular religious,
social and political contexts. To understand this, students will examine one of the "universal
values" within the United Nations system, i.e. human rights. Students will be introduced to the
formation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and understand how it
originated from debates among a multicultural group of individual philosophers, diplomats, and
politicians. Students will undertake an active learning exercise to create a Universal Declaration
of Human Values (UDHV) to reinforce these ideas.

Learning outcomes

 Understand the ideas of values, ethics, and morality in a multicultural context

 Understand how universal values can be uncovered by different means, including

scientific investigation, historical research, or public debate and deliberation (what some
philosophers call a dialectic method)

 Understand and discuss the idea of moral relativism and the challenges it poses to
universal values

 Critically assess the relationship between theory and practice in the formulation of
values

 Understand that values arise from lived experiences, but need to be justified to others

 Understand the role of deliberation and debate in framing such values

 Understand how to create an actionable document through such a process

Learning content

This Module explores the existence of universal human values. Everyone has a set of values
that arise from their family, social, cultural, religious, and political contexts, some of which
correspond to more "global" and "universal" frameworks. The Module encourages students to
articulate their values and put them into conversation with values from other contexts. The
overarching goal is to demonstrate that it is possible to articulate universal values and yet to
recognize that such standards are always open to contestation. One of the goals of this Module
is to highlight this tension between the universal nature of values, ethics and morality and the
particular contexts that create those values, ethics, and morals. Important themes to be
addressed include ethics, morality, values, relativism, rights, and responsibilities.

The term "value" means something that an individual or community believes has a worth those
merits it being pursued, promoted, or privileged. This can be a thing (money, food, art), a state
of mind (peace, security, certainty) or a behavior that results from those things or states of mind
(protecting innocents, telling the truth, being creative).

A value is not the same as a desire. To desire something means wanting a thing without much
reflection on it; that is, a desire might come from an instinct, urge, or physical need. A value may
originate in a desire or a series of desires, but a value arises after reflection on whether or not
the thing I desire is good. Philosophers focus on how we get from our desires to our values
often by focusing on the word good. One philosopher, G. E. Moore (1873-1958), argued that the
word "good" cannot really be defined because there is no standard against which we can
discover what goodness means. He called this inability to define evaluative terms "the
naturalistic fallacy" because it assumes that there is something in nature or in reality that
evaluative terms can match. He argued that good was a non-naturalistic quality, because it
cannot be verified by science (Baldwin, 2010).

Every individual will value certain things, states of minds or behaviors as these relate to his or
her upbringing and social context. Every community will privilege certain things, states and
behaviors as a result of its geographical location, historical trajectory, or ideational background.
To claim that there are universal values, however, means seeking to uncover something that
applies across all persons and communities as a result of their very humanity. Such universal
values might be derived from scientific investigation, social science testing, or philosophical
reflection. They might also arise from more nefarious methods, such as imperial practices,
ideological and religious proselytizing, or economic exploitation. To explore universal values,
then, requires attention not only to the values themselves but the ways in which they have
appeared in the current global order.

Values are the subject of ethical investigation. Sometimes the terms ethics, morality and values
are conflated into one subject. In English, it is common to use these terms interchangeably, but
philosophers distinguish them in the following way. Values and morals are closely related,
though morals and morality, according to most philosophers, result from rationality, while values
might arise from social contexts, emotional dispositions, or rationality. As noted above, a value
is different from a simple desire, for the former is something that we want after some reflection
upon whether it is actually a good thing. Ethics, on the other hand, is the study of morals,
including their origins, their uses, their justifications, and their relationships.

There have been efforts to articulate universal human values. Professor Hans Küng, a Catholic
theologian who teaches at the University of Tubingen in Germany, helped to create a
Parliament of World Religions which issued a Declaration Toward a Global Ethic. The Hindu
spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar also issued a Universal Declaration of Human Values. Both
of these documents emphasize values, and overlap in many important ways. How can we find
universal values? There are many ways to investigate the existence of such values. Those
approaches can perhaps be organized into three broad categories: scientific, historical, and
dialectic. These categories can be represented by three different philosophers: Aristotle,
Mencius, and Jürgen Habermas.

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) is considered one of the three great philosophers of Ancient Greece.
From Macedonia, he moved to Athens as a young man where he became a student of Plato,
another great philosopher (428-348 B.C.), who himself was a student of Socrates (470-399
B.C.), perhaps the greatest Greek philosopher of antiquity. Socrates did not write anything
down, but interrogated the people of Athens about what they valued. In those interrogations, he
would often raise more questions than answers, pointing out how established traditions do not
really reflect what is good for the human person.

Plato, who wrote many dialogues using the person of Socrates as his main character, argued
that ethics and values should be understood through the idea of virtues, or the standard of
excellence within particular activities as a guide for how to act. For example, being a good
captain means ensuring that a ship does not crash, that its goods and people arrive safely at
port, and that a ship remains seaworthy. When it comes to universal values, however, we are
talking about what it means to be not just a good pilot but a good human being.

Aristotle took Plato's main idea about the virtues and tried to ground it in empirical observations;
hence, he took a scientific approach to finding out what is good and what is a universal value.
Aristotle did this by comparing people to other non-human animals and comparing different
political communities. So, for Aristotle, to understand the virtue of the human person means
looking for those activities which the best people do and which make them happy.

He argued that there are two activities that differentiate human beings from all other animals:
humans think and humans live in political communities. We do know that other animals have
some ability for critical reflection, such as other primates and dolphins. And, we know that some
other animals live in what look like organized political communities, such as primates, dolphins,
and even ants. But no other animals use language, giving humans the ability to reflect critically
on what they are thinking and doing. The Greek word logos means both language and reason,
and it is that word that provides Aristotle the key to finding the good and value for the human
person. Humans are defined by the combination of these two sets of activities. Aristotle
concluded that the best possible person is one who engages in two types of activity: critical
reflection and political activity. He called the first set of activities the intellectual virtues and the
second set of activities the practical virtues.

Aristotle believed that people need to be educated into the virtues. Individuals might desire
many things which they believe will make them happy, such as wealth, food, drink, sex, or
power. Each of these is important, according to Aristotle, but all of them, on reflection, need to
be enjoyed in moderation in order to become truly valued. Only by using our rationality for
thinking and creating a community in which thinking is encouraged, and in which education is
valued, can universally values flourish (Shields, 2016).

A second approach to discovering universal values is to focus on history and tradition. The
Chinese philosopher Mencius (372-289 B.C.) lived at roughly the same time as Aristotle. Just as
Aristotle was a student of Plato who studied under Socrates, so Mencius was a disciple of the
great Chinese philosopher, Confucius (551- 479 B.C.). Some believe that Mencius studied
under the grandson of Confucius, though this is disputed. Mencius is sometimes called the
"second great Confucian scholar", as he developed and improved upon the ideas of Confucius
in important ways.

Confucius, perhaps the most famous Chinese philosopher, argued for a moral theory based on
virtues. One virtue in particular was the most important; ren, or benevolence to others. But this
compassion was not directed at all people, but rather to those within certain social systems,
beginning with the family. This means that being a good person means understanding one's
place in society and understanding the traditions and rules that arise from that place. A central
principle of Confucius is respect for one's elders, a respect that would then radiate outward to
respect for the leaders of a society. These relationships are the focus of Confucian ethical and
political thought.

Like Aristotle's Greece, the culture in which Mencius lived had well-developed social, cultural
and political structures. Ancient China was a flourishing political system, though not without its
problems. Indeed, Mencius lived during what is sometimes called the "warring states" period in
Chinese history when dynastic and political conflict was rife. Like Aristotle, Mencius was born in
one place (modern day Zhoucheng, a city in eastern China) and moved about, serving for a time
as a government official in Qi. In this role, he advised the government on their invasion of
another province, Yan, which they undertook, though Mencius resigned from his role because
the ruler would not implement changes he advocated.

Mencius adapted the teachings of Confucius, proposing four virtues: benevolence,

righteousness, propriety, and wisdom. Together, these virtues expand upon Confucius' central
one of benevolence, resulting in a fuller and more comprehensive moral theory. But, like
Confucius, Mencius believed that the family and the society provide the basis for these virtues.
To find these virtues, one needs to understand one's place in a society and one's respect for
tradition. Mencius argued that benevolence was most important, but he also believed that
cultivating wisdom to know just how to orient that benevolence was important as well. Because
of this, he placed a great deal of emphasis on education, as did Aristotle (Van Norden, 2017).

There are some parallels with Aristotle in terms of what counts as values but also some
important differences. Both Aristotle and Mencius see critical reflection on human life to be
central; for Aristotle this translates into the intellectual virtues, and for Mencius this translates
into the virtue of wisdom. They differ, however, in how they see the importance of politics. For
Aristotle, the practical virtues mean cultivating a life in which one can participate directly in
politics; this perhaps arises from the fact that Aristotle lived in Ancient Greece which was a
democracy. Mencius does not place as much emphasis on all humans being political actors,
though he himself certainly participated in politics. Rather, because of the social and political
contexts of his world, Mencius, like Confucius, placed more emphasis on respecting one's
elders and rulers and recognizing one's place in society and the family. Both, though, believed
that the human person flourishes when educated.

Comparing these two philosophers, we can see how we might come to the same conclusions
about universal values (the value of education and wisdom) and yet disagree about others (the
value of participating directly in politics or being ruled by wise rulers). We can also see how the
methods of the two philosophers differ in coming to their conclusions; Aristotle sought to
observe the natural world to come to his conclusions while Mencius observed the social context
to come to his conclusions. There are other philosophers from different cultures who come to
similar conclusions. For instance, the Arab philosopher, al-Farabi (872-951) came to similar
conclusions as Aristotle concerning the relationship of the natural world to ethics

In today's interconnected world, there is another way of seeking to find universal values, which
we might call the dialectic. This method involves engaging in debate and dialogue with others
who come from different perspectives in order to come to some consensus about what we all
agree upon. One modern day philosopher who advocates for this approach is the German
Jürgen Habermas (1929-). In his early life, Habermas was a Marxist thinker, but he moved away
from strict Marxism to embrace a more nuanced critical theory. His association with a group of
philosophers living in Frankfurt led him to be associated with the Frankfurt School, which sought
to combine critical reflection on social and economic matters with an appreciation for democratic
principles.

Habermas proposed what he called "an ideal speech situation" as a way to capture how ethical
and political dialogue took place. This is an imagined approach to dialoguing about complex
issues in which all persons are equally able to discuss and debate their positions. The goal of
such a situation is to find some consensus by which the community can advance its ideas and
values. Habermas has written about how modern democracies can capture this approach
through combining the roles of legislators and judges; the legislatures provide a space to debate
making laws while judiciaries provide a space for debate about legal disagreement. He has also
argued that the European Union provides an example of how an international order might be
designed that will lead states and their peoples to peacefully interact in order to advance certain
values.

This method differs from both the scientific and the historical. Rather than relying on abstract
scientific observation or respect for historical traditions, the dialectic approach points to the
creation of spaces in which disagreements and differing political views can be aired in order to
reach some consensus. Underlying it is the presumption that universal values do exist, but that
they can only come about through finding the space to debate differences. Furthermore, there is
the need to continually recreate those spaces to ensure that future disagreements can be
resolved (Bohman and Reig, 2017).

One example of how the consensus model might work can be found in the way in which the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was created. Rights are not the same as
values, for they express a particular normative ideal that arose out of liberalism. Underlying the
UDHR, however, are important values, such as the values of human security, free speech, and
equality. These values could be expressed in language other than rights, but they do represent
something close to a body of universal values.

More importantly, the process by which the UDHR came into existence mirrors the consensus
model described above. The UDHR was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in
Paris on 10 December 1948. The idea for such a document was proposed in the General
Assembly in 1946. The United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), one of the six
main organs of the United Nations established by the United Nations Charter in 1946, was
tasked with developing the document, and to do this it created a drafting committee chaired by
Eleanor Roosevelt. The drafting committee included individuals from around the world,
representing very different political, religious and ideological beliefs. The drafting efforts were
aided by an international commission organized by the United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which published a book compiling 20 essays on whether
or not there existed any shared rights authored by intellectual leaders from around the world.
The book included contributions from some of the most famous religious and philosophical
figures of the day, including Mahatma Gandhi. As one of the contributors, the French Catholic
philosopher Jacques Maritain, said about the deliberations of the Commission:

It is related that at one of the meetings of a UNESCO National Commission where Human
Rights were being discussed, someone expressed astonishment that certain champions of
violently opposed ideologies had agreed on a list of those rights. Yes, they said, we agree about
the rights, but on condition that no one asks us why. That "why" is where the argument begins.
(Ackerly, 2017, p.135)

The UDHR is not a long document, with a preamble and 30 articles. The Declaration is not
legally binding, though it did inform the language of the two binding covenants on human rights
which came into existence in the 1960s and have been signed by almost every country in the
world. The Declaration focuses on rights but it also emphasizes the importance of dignity and
the value of the individual person. Today, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights (OHCHR) has made the promotion of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights a central element of its work.

Again, rights are not the same as values. But what this shows us is that it is possible to find
some consensus on broad human values, in this case expressed in terms of rights

____________________________ooo0ooo________________________

Exercise 1

Directions: Discuss your stands about the speech Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Global
Ethics, entitled “Do We Still Have Universal Values?”, delivered today at Tübingen University,
Germany. Use separate paper if necessary. (50 POINTS)

Criteria:

Content – 20 points Originality – 30 points

Exercise 2

Directions: Write a reflection paper about the universal values. You may include personal
observations. Use separate paper if necessary. (30 POINTS)

Criteria:

Content – 15 points Originality – 15 points

References

 Ackerly, Brooke (2017). Interpreting the political theory in the practice of human
rights. Law and Philosophy vol. 36, No. 2.

 Baldwin, Tom (2010). George Edward Moore. The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta, ed.

 Bohman, James and William Reig (2017). Jürgen Habermas. The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta, ed.

 Shields, Christopher (2016). Aristotle. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward

N. Zalta, ed.

 Van Norden, Bryan (2017). Mencius. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward
N. Zalta, ed.
 MODULE 3
Ethics and Society
Overview
This Module explores the importance of ethics to society and the relationship between
these two concepts. It is designed to be used by the students in order understand the
concept of society - sometimes defined as humankind as a whole, sometimes in relation
to a particular place - and to investigate the ways in which ethical approaches can be
applied to increase our understanding of society, and ultimately our attempts to improve
it. It also aims to illustrate that ethics is part of the fabric of any dimension of society.
Particular attention is given to social contract theory and the work of John Rawls, with
specific reference to the concepts of justice and fairness.

Learning outcomes
 Define the concept of society
 Understand the relationship between ethics and society
 Describe different theoretical approaches that inform this issue, with specific
reference to social contract theory
 Articulate and defend a preferred position on the relationship between ethics and
society while appreciating its limitations

Learning content
Does society need ethics? Can we envision a society without ethics? These
questions address the very important relationship between ethics and society, and are
informed by more fundamental questions such as the following:

Pre – activity
 Is ethics inherent in human beings and therefore embedded within society (which
would imply that the laws of nature are universal and eternal, and can be
discovered by reason)?
 Is ethics a human construct and therefore dependent on its creators (and by
implication subject to both societal context and constant change)?
 Is the study of ethics and its role in society important for humans?
The concept of "society" is one of the most pervasive of all, and this Module
investigates different definitions of society. One of the many dictionary definitions of
society is that it is "a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common
traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests" (Merriam-Webster).
Although we sometimes refer to the global society, there are many different societies
that are defined in different ways (sometimes controversially) based on geographical,
cultural and other boundaries. One of the most popular ways to dissect society
conceptually is to make the distinction between three sectors: the public sector
(government), private sector (business enterprises) and civil society (non-profit
organizations).

Although the concept of ethics can also be questioned, the point of departure in this
Module is to acknowledge and recap the main ethical theories without asking the meta-
question: Is there such a thing as ethics? This Module focuses mostly on the Western
concepts of society and ethics, but also acknowledges the relevance of non-Western
perspectives, such as Eastern, African or Latin American philosophies. Lecturers who
wish to explore Eastern philosophy in more detail are referred to an introductory
discussion of by James Fieser (2017). As opposed to the more secular approach of
Western philosophy, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism and Daoism offer alternative
approaches to and explanations for the concept of society. Although it is difficult to
generalize, these approaches tend to be more closely associated with religious
traditions. Moreover, similarly to early Greek philosophy, they often do not clearly
distinguish between personal, social and political elements. The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy describes the tradition of Chinese ethical thought as follows:

[It] is centrally concerned with questions about how one ought to live: what goes
into a worthwhile life, how to weigh duties toward family versus duties toward strangers,
whether human nature is predisposed to be morally good or bad, how one ought to
relate to the non-human world, the extent to which one ought to become involved in
reforming the larger social and political structures of one's society, and how one ought
to conduct oneself when in a position of influence or power. (Wong, 2017)
As is often the case with a Western perspective, Greece is a good place to start a
discussion of the concept of society (Frisby and Sayer, 1986). The Greeks did not have
a separate word for society, but referred to society in combination with references to
community and association (koinonia). This word was used both within the political as
well as a household context and already contains an ethical dimension since a
relationship with the concept of justice is implied. Of course, the fact that only those who
were not slaves were deemed qualified to discuss these matters also illustrates some
interesting ethical dimensions about freedom which were not apparent at the time.

Fast forward a few hundred years, and due mostly to the influence of Christianity, the
Greeks' unified concept of society was discontinued. The work of Thomas Aquinas, for
example, makes a distinction between what belongs on earth (civitas terrena) and what
belongs with God (civitas Dei), with concomitant responsibilities to obey secular as well
as divine laws (Frisby and Sayer, 1986, p. 16).

All the main ethical theories can be applied to different factions within or dimensions of
society. Some of the most popular and well-known normative theories are utilitarianism,
where ethical decisions are made based on an assessment of the likely consequences
of an action; deontology, where decisions are made based on rights and duties; ethics
of care, where morality depends on care for the well-being of others; and virtue ethics,
where the focus is not on assessing the action, but rather the individual involved.

These theories are discussed in further detail in Module 1 and 9 of the present Module
Series. Within the secular tradition, the idea of a social contract is critical to
understanding the concept of society. In essence, a social contract comprises the
voluntary agreement of individuals for society to be regulated in a way that would
benefit both society and individuals, based on the ethical dimensions of justice and
fairness. The social contract has been defined as follows: "people live together in
society in accordance with an agreement that establishes moral and political rules of
behavior. Some people believe that if we live according to a social contract, we can live
morally by our own choice and not because a divine being requires it" (Ethics
Unwrapped, 2018).
A brief summary of the concept of the social contract is provided by the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy: it traces the history of the term, starting with the Greek
philosophers to Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant and Rawls (D'Agostino, 2017). The
table below provides extracts from the Stanford Encyclopedia's discussion of a few of
these philosophers.

John Locke
Thomas Hobbes
John Locke (1632-1704) is among the most
The 17 th Century English philosopher influential political philosophers of the modern
Thomas Hobbes is now widely regarded as period. In the Two Treatises of Government,
one of a handful of truly great political he defended the claim that men are by nature
philosophers, whose masterwork free and equal against claims that God had
Leviathan rivals in significance the political made all people naturally subject to a
writings of Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Rousseau, monarch. He argued that people have rights,
Kant, and Rawls. Hobbes is famous for his such as the right to life, liberty, and property,
early and elaborate development of what that have a foundation independent of the
has come to be known as "social contract laws of any particular society. Locke used the
theory", the method of justifying political claim that men are naturally free and equal as
principles or arrangements by appeal to the part of the justification for understanding
agreement that would be made among legitimate political government as the result of
suitably situated rational, free, and equal a social contract where people in the state of
persons. He is infamous for having used the nature conditionally transfer some of their
social contract method to arrive at the rights to the government in order to better
astonishing conclusion that we ought to ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of
submit to the authority of an absolute- their lives, liberty, and property. Since
undivided and unlimited-sovereign power. governments exist by the consent of the
(Lloyd, 2014) people in order to protect the rights of the
people and promote the public good,
governments that fail to do so can be resisted
and replaced with new governments. Locke is
thus also important for his defense of the right
of revolution.
(Tuckness, 2016)

Jean-Jacques Rousseau Immanuel Kant

Jean-Jacques Rousseau remains an important Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is the central

figure in the history of philosophy, both figure in modern philosophy. He synthesized
because of his contributions to political early modern rationalism and empiricism, set
philosophy and moral psychology and the terms for much of nineteenth and
because of his influence on later thinkers. twentieth century philosophy, and continues to
Rousseau's own view of philosophy and exercise a significant influence today in
philosophers was firmly negative, seeing metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political
philosophers as the post-hoc rationalizers of philosophy, aesthetics, and other fields. The
self-interest, as apologists for various forms fundamental idea of Kant's "critical
of tyranny, and as playing a role in the philosophy" - especially in his three Critiques:
alienation of the modern individual from the Critique of Pure Reason (1781, 1787), the
humanity's natural impulse to compassion. Critique of Practical Reason (1788), and the
The concern that dominates Rousseau's work Critique of the Power of Judgment (1790) - is
is to find a way of preserving human human autonomy. He argues that the human
freedom in a world where human beings are understanding is the source of the general
increasingly dependent on one another for laws of nature that structure all our
Table 1: Extracts from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
 the satisfaction of their needs. (Bertram, experience; and that human reason gives itself
2017) the moral law, which is our basis for belief in
God, freedom, and immortality. (Rohlf, 2016)

John Rawls (1921 - 2002) was an American political philosopher whose most famous
contribution was his theory of justice as fairness (Wenar, 2017). The work of Rawls is
addressed in Exercise 3 of this Module. In the following quote he discusses one of the
most critical ethical characteristics of society - the tension between the common interest
and the individual's interest:

Society … is typically marked by a conflict as well as by an identity of interest. There is

an identity of interest since social cooperation makes possible a better life for all than
any would have if each were to live solely by his own efforts. There is a conflict of
interests since persons are not indifferent as to how the greater benefits produced by
their collaboration are distributed, for in order to pursue their ends they each prefer a
larger to a lesser share. (Rawls, 1971, p. 4)

Of course, philosophy does not offer the only entry point for discussions about society.
In fact, an entire academic discipline - sociology - focuses on the scientific study of
structures, processes and relationships within society. Sociology can be linked to the
concepts of integrity and ethics in different ways. Even if the purpose of sociology is
defined narrowly as an "objective" study of aspects of society, many of those aspects
(e.g. class structure or societal deviance) have strong ethical dimensions. In addition,
the less neutral definition of sociology would imply a normative dimension, i.e. that the
purpose of sociology is to improve society through scientific study.

One of the most influential figures in the establishment of the sociological tradition is
Max Weber (1864 - 1920). Weber was a German sociologist and political economist
who wrote extensively about capitalism, and his work has often been juxtaposed with
the work of Karl Marx (Kim, 2017). The following view on capitalism comes from his
introduction to The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism:

The impulse to acquisition, pursuit of gain, of money, of the greatest possible amount of
money, has in itself nothing to do with capitalism. This impulse exists and has existed
 among waiters, physicians, coachmen, artists, prostitutes, dishonest officials, soldiers,
nobles, crusaders, gamblers, and beggars. One may say that it has been common to all
sorts and conditions of men at all times and in all countries of the earth, wherever the
objective possibility of it is or has been given. It should be taught in the kindergarten of
cultural history that this naïve idea of capitalism must be given up once and for all.
Unlimited greed for gain is not in the least identical with capitalism, and is still less its
spirit. Capitalism may even be identical with the restraint, or at least a rational
tempering, of this irrational impulse. But capitalism is identical with the pursuit of profit,
and forever renewed profit, by means of continuous, rational, capitalistic enterprise. For
it must be so: in a wholly capitalistic order of society, an individual capitalistic enterprise
which did not take advantage of its opportunities for profit-making would be doomed to
extinction. (Weber, 2001, pp. xxxi-xxxii)

Weber introduced the distinction between the ethics of conviction and the ethics of
responsibility in a famous lecture, Politics as a Vocation, which he delivered to radical
students in Germany in 1918. In the lecture, Weber describes two different world views.
The ethics of conviction presents the world of good intentions, sometimes exemplified
by people acting on the basis of religious beliefs. For example: a Christian does what is
right and leaves the outcomes to God. But the ethics of responsibility looks beyond
conviction and intention, and takes the consequences of action (or inaction) into
account. According to Weber, humans should resist evil with force, otherwise they will
be responsible for it getting out of hand. Although Weber's frame of reference was the
Christian tradition, it could be argued that the same tension between conviction and
responsibility would also apply in other religious traditions.

It is the second approach (ethics of responsibility) that implies ethical responsibilities in

terms of how we understand our position in society. Discussions about ethics and
society include many specialized applications of ethics: business ethics and corporate
responsibility, media ethics and medical ethics, to mention a few. Questions about how
to respond to fake news, social inequality, drone warfare, artificial intelligence, political
refugees, religious intolerance or climate change all have substantial links to society.
This Module does not address any of the applied areas in detail, but focuses on the
higher-level issue of the relationship between ethics and society, with specific reference
to the concepts of justice, fairness and trust. Fukuyama (1996, p. 7) states that "a
nation's well-being, as well as its ability to compete, is conditioned by a single,
pervasive cultural characteristic: the level of trust inherent in the society". Some of these
topics will be addressed in more detail in other Modules of the E4J Integrity and Ethics
Module Series, for example religious intolerance in Module 5 (Ethics, Diversity and
Pluralism) and fake news in Module 10 (Media Ethics).

____________________________ooo0ooo________________________

Exercise 1: The Everyday Ethicist

Criteria:
Content – 15 points Originality – 15 points Total: 30 points
Directions:
 Watch the following talk: The Significance of Ethics and Ethics Education in Daily
Life. (YouTube)
 This is a TEDx talk in which Michael Burroughs discusses different kinds of
ethical issues we face in our daily life. Because we all have to make ethical
decisions on a daily basis, he describes the concept of "everyday ethicists".
 Discuss the video and in particular the following questions: What is the
relationship between ethics and society? What is the origin of our own ethical
standards and the ethical standards of society? The lecturer should invite some
students to provide feedback.

Exercise 2: What do I owe society?

Directions: Discuss the scenarios about, ‘’What do I owe society?’’, The question can
be discussed in two distinct ways:
Criteria:
Content – 15 points Originality – 15 points Total: 30 points
  Given the investment that society has made to educate me, how should I behave
while I am a student? Is it acceptable to get involved in activities such as buying
or selling exam papers or written assignments, or plagiarism?

 What do I owe society once I graduate? Should I consider societal needs when I
make a decision on where I want to work?
References
 Bertram, Christopher (2017). Jean Jacques Rousseau. The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta, ed.
 D'Agostino, Fred and others (2017). Contemporary approaches to the Social
Contract. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta, ed.
 Ethics Unwrapped - McCombs School of Business (2018). Social contract theory.
 Fieser, James (2017). Classical Eastern Philosophy. 1 September.
 Frisby, David and Derek Sayer (1986). Society. Chichester: Ellis Horwood.
 Fukuyama, Francis (1996). Trust: The Social Virtues and Creation of Prosperity.
New York: Free Press.
 Kim, Sung Ho (2017). Max Weber. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Edward N. Zalta, ed.
 Lloyd, Sharon A. and Susanne Sreedhar (2014). Hobbes's moral and political
philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta, ed.
 Rawls, John (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
 Rohlf, Michael (2016). Immanuel Kant. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Edward N. Zalta, ed.
 Society. Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster.
 Tuckness, Alex (2016). Locke's political philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta, ed.
 Weber, Max (2001). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London:
Routledge Classics.
 Wenar, Leif (2017). John Rawls. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Edward N. Zalta, ed.
 Wong, David (2017). Chinese ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Edward N. Zalta, ed.
 MODULE 4
Ethical Leadership

Overview

We live in a world in which individuals, organizations, countries and societies are

increasingly connected. Therefore, the impact of leadership - both good and bad -
reverberates throughout entire political and economic systems. Greater connection
equals greater influence, and this has changed the nature of leadership. Leaders have
influence beyond their organizations, increasing the interconnection between ethics and
good leadership.

This Module is designed to help acquaint students with the theoretical

underpinnings and practical applications of ethical leadership, taking into account the
cultural diversity of contemporary organizations. The Module is structured around three
major questions:
 What is ethical leadership?
 Why is ethical leadership important?
 How can ethical leadership be promoted?

Note: Do not include the above-mentioned questions in your exercises. Answer the questions
within your mind.

Learning outcomes

 Define and give examples of ethical leadership

 Understand leaders' ethical responsibilities
 Explain effective ethical leadership
 Assess ethical leadership
 Identify ways to promote ethical leadership

Learning content

 Leadership and ethics

 Leadership has been defined in various ways (Fleishman and others, 1991). One
common definition regards leadership as a process whereby an individual influences a
group of individuals to achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2016, p. 16). The following
components are central to this definition: (a) leadership is a process, (b) leadership
involves influence, (c) leadership occurs in groups, and (d) leadership involves common
goals.

For present purposes, the Module refers to the individuals exerting influence as
'leaders', and to those being influenced as 'followers'. While the distinction between
leaders and followers is helpful for illustrative purposes, it should be noted that one can
simultaneously be a leader in one context and a follower in another context. It should
also be noted that leadership can be formal, such as in the case of an elected prime
minister or a company's CEO. But there are also cases of informal leadership, when the
influence does not derive from a formal authority conferred through rules and
procedures. Finally, it is useful to highlight that leader can be associated with the world
of business, politics, popular culture, and other areas of life.

Turning to the concept of ethical leadership, Eisenbeiss (2012) argues that this concept
involves setting and pursuing ethical goals and influencing others in an ethical manner.
Similarly, De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2009) define ethical leadership as the process of
influencing the activities of a group toward goal achievement in a socially responsible
way. They focus both on the means through which leaders attempt to achieve goals as
well as on the ends themselves.

As discussed in detail in Integrity and Ethics Module 1 (Introduction and Conceptual

Framework), the study of ethics generally consists of examining questions about right
and wrong, virtue, duty, justice, fairness, and responsibility towards others. From an
ethical perspective, according to Ciulla (2014, p. 16), the ultimate point of studying
leadership is to answer the question: What is good leadership? The word "good" has
two meanings in this context: technically good (or effective) and morally good. This
focus on the concept of 'morally good' demonstrates that ethics lies at the heart of
leadership studies.

 The importance of ethical leadership

Ethical leadership is important for two main reasons. First, leaders have ethical
responsibilities because they have a special position in which they have a greater
opportunity to influence others and, therefore, outcomes in significant ways. Most
people would agree that all of us have a responsibility to behave ethically, but it is clear
that leaders are held to higher ethical standards than followers.

The values of leaders influence the culture of an organization or society, and whether it
behaves ethically or not. Leaders set the tone, develop the vision, and their values and
behaviours shape the behaviour those involved in the organization or society.
Therefore, leaders have a significant impact on people and societies. Examples of
formal and informal leaders from around the world include Nelson Mandela, Mahatma
Gandhi, Malala Yousafzai, Peng Liyuan (First Lady of China), Sheikh Hasina Wajed
(Prime Minister of Bangladesh), Yvon Chouinard (the founder of Patagonia), Melinda
Gates and Angelina Jolie. However, the impact of a leader is not always positive, as
illustrated by Hitler's leadership of Nazi Germany. The impact of his leadership was
disastrous for millions of individuals and the world in general.

On a smaller scale, even team leaders can have profound effects on their team
members and the organization. All leaders, no matter how many followers they have,
exert power. To exert power over other people carries an ethical responsibility. Power is
the ability of one person (or department) in an organization to influence other people to
bring about desired outcomes. The greater the power, the more responsibility a leader
has. Therefore, leaders at all levels carry a responsibility for setting the ethical tone and
for acting as role models for others.

Contemporary practice and literature is shifting the focus away from traditional
leadership styles, such as charismatic and transactional leadership, and is increasingly
focusing on leadership styles that emphasize an ethical dimension, such as
transformative, servant, value-based or authentic leadership. In other words, what is
regarded today as a 'good leader' is someone who effectively leads towards ethical
results and not someone who is simply good at leading (as many ill meaning
demagogues can be). It has been argued that this development emphasizes the strong
links between ethics and effective leadership (Ng and Feldman, 2015).

Two models can be used to explain the relationship between ethical leadership and
effective leadership - the 'interpersonal trust' model and the 'social power' model. The
former is attributed to Schindler and Thomas (1993), who argue that interpersonal trust
is based on five components: integrity, competence, consistency, loyalty, and
openness. Integrity refers to honesty and truthfulness; competence is associated with
technical and interpersonal knowledge and skills; consistency is defined as reliability,
predictability, and good judgment; loyalty refers to willingness to protect and save face
for a person; and openness is the willingness to share ideas and information freely. This
model reflects the idea that followers who trust a leader are willing to be vulnerable to
the leader's actions because they are confident that their rights and interests will not be
abused.

The 'social power' model was developed by French and Raven (1959), who identified
five common and important bases of power: legitimate, coercive, reward, expert, and
referent. Legitimate power refers to a person's right to influence another person coupled
with the latter's obligation to accept this influence; coercive power derives from having
the capacity to penalize or punish others; reward power is about having the capacity to
provide rewards to others; expert power is based on the followers' perceptions of the
leader's competence; and referent power derives from the followers' identification with
and liking of the leader. Each of these bases of power increases a leader's capacity to
influence the attitudes, values, or behaviours of others.

There are three ways in which a follower may react to these forms of power, according
to French and Raven (1959). First, when leaders successfully use legitimate or coercive
or reward power (collectively referred to as position power) they will generate
compliance. Compliance means that people follow the directions of the person with
power, whether or not they agree with those directions. The second way in which
followers may react to the use of power, especially the use of coercion that exceeds a
level people consider legitimate, is to resist the leader's attempt to influence. Resistance
means that employees will deliberately try to avoid carrying out instructions or they will
attempt to disobey orders. The third type of reaction to power is commitment, which is
the response most often generated by expert or referent power (collectively referred to
as personal power). Commitment means that followers adopt the leader's viewpoint and
enthusiastically carry out instructions. Although compliance alone may be enough for
routine matters, commitment is particularly important when the leader is promoting
change (Daft, 2008, p. 365). In general, people tend to identify with an ethical leader.
Ethical leadership is not the sole source of referent power, but it is an important one,
particularly in an increasingly changing, globalizing, and transparent world.

 Ethical dimensions of leadership

The evaluation of leadership from an ethical point of view is influenced by ethical

theories and principles of ethical leadership, as well as by practical questions. Ethical
theories provide a system of rules or principles that guide us in making decisions about
what is right or wrong and good or bad in a particular situation (Northouse, 2016). There
are various theoretical approaches to ethical decision-making. Three of the major
Western theories were discussed in Module 1: utilitarianism (morality depends on
whether the action maximizes the overall social 'utility' or happiness), deontology
(morality depends on conformity to moral principles or duties irrespective of the
consequences) and virtue ethics (morality depends on perfecting one's character).
Practical guidelines for exercising ethical leadership have been created by various
scholars. For example, Eisenbeiss (2012) highlights four principles of ethical leadership:
humane orientation, justice orientation, responsibility and sustainability orientation, and
moderation orientation. Another approach is that of Northouse (2016), who suggests
five principles of ethical leadership: respect, service, justice, honesty, and community.
These principles are the focus of Exercise 5 of the Module.
 While theories and principles of ethical leadership are pertinent,practical questions
are also important for ethical dilemmas, especially since it is not always feasible to
apply a detailed theoretical analysis before making a decision. In this regard, it is helpful
to use a checklist to guide decision-making. This is sometimes referred to as "ethics
quick tests" or ethical decision-making models, both of which have made their
appearance in various guises such as codes of conduct of large corporations. The
following example of an ethical decision-making model is provided by Hodges and
Steinholtz (2018):

Another example is the ethics quick test that is provided by The Ethics Center, an
Australian-based non-profit organization. The Ethics Center suggests that we ask the
following six questions before we make a decision:

 Would I be happy for this decision to be headlining the news tomorrow?

 Is there a universal rule that applies here?
 Will the proposed course of action bring about a good result?
 What would happen if everybody did this?
 What will this proposed action do to my character or the character of my
organization?
 Is the proposed course of action consistent with my values and principles?
 Effective leaders are often confronted with impossible dilemmas, where no ideal
resolution exists. In such situation leaders need to make difficult decisions that involve
sacrificing some goods for the sake of promoting others. A classic example is the
decision to go to war, knowing that many people, including civilians, will die. Sometimes
this dilemma is known as the dirty hands problem.

 Becoming an ethical leader

The issue of ethical leadership is an ancient one. For example, Aristotle argued that
the ethical person in a position of leadership embodies the virtues of courage,
temperance, generosity, self-control, honesty, sociability, modesty, fairness, and justice.
To Confucius, wisdom, benevolence and courage are the core virtues. Applying ethics
to leadership and management, Velasquez (1992) has suggested that managers
develop virtues such as perseverance, public-spiritedness, integrity, truthfulness,
fidelity, benevolence, and humility. Ethical leadership is also associated with the African
concept of the sage. Henry Odera Oruka (1944-1995), from Kenya, researched sage
traditions of Sub-Saharan Africa and provided an account of wisdom that is distinctly
African. The contemporary South African author Reul Khoza provided accounts of
ethical leadership from the perspective of Ubuntu which, among other things, feature a
communitarian account of virtue originating in Africa.

The philosopher Al-Farabi (872-950) provides us insights into ethical leadership from
an Islamic perspective. He was born somewhere in modern day Central Asia, and
moved throughout the great cities of the Islamic world, such as Baghdad and
Damascus. His philosophy was wide ranging, but his insights on leadership can be
found in his writings on ethics and politics. In those works, including his famous book
The Virtuous City, Al-Farabi argued that leaders should also be philosophers, an idea
he drew from the Ancient Greek philosopher Plato. For Al-Farabi, this meant that a
leader must not just be a person of action and power, but one who reflects upon what is
best for the community which he or she governs. Unlike Plato, he argued that the best
city was not a monocultural one, but one which embraced diversity, and the wisest
leaders found ways in which peoples of different races and beliefs could live together.
Other thinkers have emphasized other sets of virtues, but the differences are not as big
as one might think. In fact, people from various cultures may have quite similar views on
essential virtues.

Regarding the development of virtues, according to the Aristotelian way, when

virtues are practiced over time, from youth to adulthood, good values become habitual,
and part of the people themselves. By telling the truth, people become truthful; by giving
to the poor, people become benevolent; by being fair to others, people become just.
The Confucian way of cultivating oneself begins with obtaining a deep knowledge of
how the world works, moves through taking certain actions and ends with one's most
ambitious goal - to illustrate virtue throughout the world. This is strongly connected to
the idea that 'knowing', 'doing' and 'being' are three interrelated components of an
ethical person. In The Great Learning, written around 500 B.C., and the first of four
books selected by Zhu Xi during the Song Dynasty as a foundational introduction to
Confucianism, Confucius described the process as follows:

The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue throughout the kingdom first
ordered well their own states. Wishing to order well their states, they first regulated their
families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their persons. Wishing to
cultivate their persons, they first rectified their hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts,
they first sought to be sincere in their thoughts. Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts,
they first extended to the utmost their knowledge. Such extension of knowledge lay in
the investigation of things.

Treviño, Hartman and Brown (2000) argue that ethical leadership comprises two
aspects: the "ethical person" and the "ethical manager". One must first be an ethical
person in order to become an ethical manager. The managerial aspect refers to a
leader's intentional efforts to influence others and guide the ethical behaviour of
followers - such as communicating ethical standards and disciplining employees who
behave unethically. Ethical leadership relies on a leader's ability to focus the
organization's attention on ethics and values and to infuse the organization with
principles that will guide the actions of all employees. Treviño and others also identify
three measures that effective ethical managers usually take. First, they serve as a role
model for ethical conduct in a way that is visible to employees. Second, they
communicate regularly and persuasively with employees about ethical standards,
principles and values. Third, they use the reward system consistently to hold all
employees accountable to ethical standards.

The context in which leaders operate should not be ignored. Even an ethical person
with ethical intentions can behave unethically due to behavioural dimensions and or
systemic pressures. These issues are explored in depth in Modules 6, 7 and 8.
Moreover, ethical leadership may vary in different cultures, including in terms of style
and values as well as the manners in which the leader influences followers.
____________________________ooo0ooo________________________

Exercise 1: Leader's view

Directions: Complete the following questionnaire and explain your stands behind your
choices. Think carefully about each item below and indicate whether you agree or
disagree with it. Also indicate whether you think your class mates would agree or
disagree with each item. (20 POINTS)

The questionnaire is adapted from Richard Daft's The Leadership Experience (p. 166;
see References in Key issues section of the Module).

Me (Agree / Disagree) My class mates (Agree /

Disagree)
1. Overall, it is better to be
humble and honest than to be
successful and dishonest.
2. If you trust someone
completely, you are asking for
trouble

3. A leader should take action

only when it is morally right.

4. A good way to handle

people is to tell them what
they like to hear.
5. There is no excuse for
telling a white lie to someone.

6. It makes sense to flatter

important people.
7. Most people who get ahead
as leaders have led very moral
lives.
8. It is better not to tell people
the real reason you did
something unless it benefits
you to do so.
 9. The majority of people are
brave, good, and kind.
10. It is hard to get to the top
without sometimes cutting
corners.

Exercise 2: Case study Telling the truth

Directions: Consider the following case, taken from Robbins, Stephen P. and David A.
De Cenzo (1998). Fundamentals of management: Essential concepts and applications
(2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, p. 28. (30 POINTS)

Criteria:
Content – 15 points Relevance – 15 points Total: 30 points

One of your employees has just been diagnosed with a treatable form of cancer.
He has confided in you about the status of his health. He has also asked you not to say
a word to anyone because he considers his health to be a personal matter. Over the
next few months, this employee is absent frequently, especially during his radiation
treatments. His absences are not a major problem for the company because his duties
involve direct computer work which he can do while at home. However, some of your
other employees have asked you what's wrong with him. You politely decline to discuss
his situation. As a result, the other employees think that their co-worker is getting
special treatment, and are ready to go to your boss to complain. You are confident that
if they only knew of the employee's illness, they would understand. But you promised
him not to reveal the reason for his absence. At the same time, it would create
unnecessary and unhelpful problems for him if other employees complain about him.

Answer the following questions substantially:

1. Should you reveal to your employees the reason for their co-worker's absence?
Why or why not?

2. Should you explain to your boss what is really going on?

3. How would you handle this situation?

References

 Ciulla, Joanne B. (2014). Ethics, the Heart of Leadership. 3 rd ed. Santa Barbara,
California: Praeger.
 Daft, Richard L. (2008). The Leadership Experience. 4 th ed. Stamford, CT:
Cengage.
 de Hoogh, Annebel H.D., and Deanne N. den Hartog (2009). Ethical leadership:
the positive and responsible use of power. In Power and Interdependence in
Organizations, Dean Tjosvold and Barbara Wisse, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
 Eisenbeiss, Silke Astrid (2012). Re-thinking ethical leadership: an
interdisciplinary integrative approach. The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 23, No. 5,
pp. 791-808.
 Fleishman, Edwin A. and others (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of
leader behavior: a synthesis and functional interpretation. The Leadership
Quarterly, vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 245-287.
 French, John R. P., Jr. and Bertram Raven (1959). The bases of social power.
In Studies in social power, ed. Dorwin Cartwright. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for
Social Research.
 Hodges, Christopher and Ruth Steinholtz (2018). Ethical Business Practice and
Regulation: A Behavioural and Values-Based Approach to Compliance and
Enforcement. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
 Ng, Thomas W. H., and Daniel C. Feldman (2015). Ethical leadership: meta-
analytic evidence of criterion-related and incremental validity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 100, No. 3, pp. 948-965.
 Northouse, Peter G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. 7th ed. Los
Angeles: SAGE.
 Schindler, Paul L., and Cher C. Thomas (1993). The structure of interpersonal
trust in the workplace. Psychological Reports, vol. 73, No. 2, pp. 563-573.
 Treviño, Linda Klebe, Laura Pincus Hartman and Michael E. Brown (2000). Moral
person and moral manager: how executives develop a reputation for ethical
leadership. California Management Review, vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 128-142.
 Velasquez, Manuel G. (1992). Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases. 3 rd ed.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
 MODULE 5
Ethics, Diversity and Pluralism

Overview

This Module explores the concepts of diversity, tolerance and pluralism. It

examines ways in which the acceptance of diversity may be difficult but can be
understood and accomplished by drawing on ideas and examples of ethical behavior.
The Module provides a menu of options and approaches for addressing ethical
challenges involving issues of race, religious belief, gender, sexual orientation,
(dis)ability, political views, and a range of others. It illustrates the relevant concepts
through discussing historical social systems in which tolerance and pluralism were
evident, and historical role models of integrity who provided inspirational leadership in
modelling diversity and acceptance in vexing situations. The Module also discusses
moral quandaries in which solutions to a moral dilemma are not clear-cut and require
specific forms of ethical reasoning. The discussion emphasizes and explores the
importance of diversity not only in the context of fairness to individuals and marginalized
groups, but also as a means to improve society as a whole. The Module engages the
students with a variety of pedagogical techniques, including mini-lecture, discussion,
debate, and role playing, to encourage participatory decision-making within both
hypothetical and real-life diversity-sensitive situations.

Learning outcomes

• Understand and define diversity, tolerance and pluralism

• Perceive the value of cultures, identities, histories, and points of view other than one’s
own
• Provide examples of moral role models whose actions promote the values of tolerance
and pluralism
• Demonstrate a preliminary understanding of more complex aspects of diversity such
as intersectionality, identity and subcultures
Learning content

The study of diversity, tolerance and pluralism, especially as these relate to culture,
race, nationality, religious belief, gender, (dis)ability, and sexual orientation, is a key
domain within ethics education since issues such as discrimination, misrepresentation
and ethnocentricity are related to fairness, justice, identity, equality, and other ethical
concerns. The study of diversity, tolerance and pluralism not only deepens our
understanding of the points of view and social contexts of people from multiple
backgrounds and life approaches, but also sensitizes us to the need to critically
evaluate our assumptions including our stereotypes about “otherness” obtained through
mass media, local bias, socialization, and first-hand exposure.

As noted in Module 1 of the Module 4 Integrity and Ethics Module Series, ethics refers
to “the attempt to arrive at an understanding of the nature of human values, of how we
ought to live, and of what constitutes right conduct”. The dictionary definition of ethics is
“the study or the science of morals”. Moral is defined as “a sense of right and wrong”,
and being moral as “belonging or relating to the principles of good and evil, or right and
wrong”. In the broadest sense, therefore, ethics is “a way of life". However, at the
professional level, ethics is a “mode of moral reasoning” within specific professions
often formulated in codes, policies, best practices, guidelines, and similar documents. In
addition, ethics is an academic term which describes a branch of philosophy devoted to
moral reasoning. Finally, in the most commonly used sense of the word, in many
cultures “ethics” means virtue and subsets or synonyms of that term such as integrity,
character and honesty (Chambers, 1999).

Diversity comes from the English root word diverse, which simply means a state in
which there exist differences. Within the study of cultures, diversity pertains more
specifically to the honoring of all races, sexual orientations, religions, genders, as if they
are each an important hue within the rainbow. More recently, diversity has taken on the
added meaning of a cause which champions the equality and rights of all these groups
and is frequently linked with inclusion such that the phrase “diversity and inclusion”
emphasizes both the importance of difference and the necessity of making each
background and group feel important and included. In sociology, or the study of human
societies, diversity refers to the variety of inter-group relations regarding race,
nationality, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and religious belief. Sociologists are
often interested in the patterns of prejudice and discrimination which exacerbate
differences and make them negatives, rather than positives, in the human condition.

Tolerance means the recognition of differences and the assumption that such
differences should be allowed in a society. Throughout history, many societies have
exercised forms of tolerance. The early Muslim empires, for instance, created spaces
for Christians and Jews to live among them, with their own legal systems and social
orders. The idea of tolerance as a formal principle, however, comes from the liberal
tradition. The English political philosopher, John Locke (1632-1704), articulated the idea
of toleration in a series of letters he wrote in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. In
these letters, Locke argued for tolerance of differences in religious belief and practice,
differences that were an important cause of the British civil wars of the 17th century.
Finally, the word pluralism means not simply the grudging acceptance of differences in
a social setting, but a recognition that such differences will improve the social order. A
plural order is one in which a multiplicity of groups will make a social system better.
Pluralism is often associated with democracy, for it is a condition of a democratic
system that diversity in social and political matters will make a system more legitimate
and effective. Some democratic systems allow pluralism to operate directly by giving
interest groups the ability to access law makers, hence allowing their different views to
be part of a successful social and political order.

Another term for pluralism is acceptance. At the broadest level this concept pertains to
being at peace with situations, peoples, conditions, and attitudes as they are. However,
within the context of ethics and diversity, acceptance means the ability to welcome if not
champion differences in all types of human demographics whether by age, lifestyle,
gender, orientation, race, ability, religion, and other categories. In some contexts,
“acceptance” can also pertain to “surrender” or “yielding” to either a higher power or to a
particular way of life and its rules.

Throughout history, different ethical and religious traditions have sought to negotiate the
differences that exist within their societies. Imperial systems which conquered and then
sought to amalgamate different religious beliefs provide some of the earliest evidence of
how to deal with a plurality of beliefs or differences. One of the best examples of this
comes from the ancient Persian Empire ruled by Cyrus the Great (600 – 530 B.C.).
Cyrus ruled a large empire that stretched across the modern-day Middle East and
Central Asia. When he came to power, Cyrus allowed conquered peoples to return to
their homelands and, rather radically for his day and ours, contributed to the rebuilding
of destroyed religious monuments. Famously, the E4J University Mod

Hebrew Scriptures identify Cyrus as a messiah-like figure for his role in rebuilding the
Temple in Jerusalem. Cyrus’ reputation as a defender of pluralism was further
reinforced with the discovery of the Cyrus Cylinder. This small round object has writing
in ancient Babylonian which describes the conquest by Cyrus of the Babylonian Empire
and his decision to allow and even encourage a diversity of religious and ethnic groups
throughout his empire. The cylinder, discovered in the late 19th century, is now kept at
the British Museum. In recent years, it has been referred to as one of the earliest
documents about human rights. As stated by the director of the British Museum, Neil
MacGregor, this is not really accurate. The document does not refer to individual rights
at all, and the ancient world rarely had any conception of the rights of individuals (2013).
Rather, the document is better understood as one of the first attempts to deal with
ethnic and religious diversity. It not only provides an example of tolerance, but of
pluralism. Cyrus did not simply allow groups to live in peace but he actively encouraged
them to rebuild their temples. We do not know exactly why he did this, as our evidence
of his historical context is limited. However, his actions, as represented both in the
Hebrew Scriptures and the Cyrus Cylinder, do suggest he was someone who advocated
an early form of pluralism. How a society should respond to diversity has long been an
ethical challenge. From the evidence we have, Cyrus was able to address this in a
creative way, but not all societies have been able to do this peacefully. In 17th -century
Britain, for instance, civil war broke out as a result of religious diversity (along with other
reasons). In 1534, King Henry VIII of Great Britain signed the Act of Supremacy, which
declared him the Supreme Head of the Church of England. This act removed the
religious authority of the Pope in Rome, which led to the creation of the Protestant
Church of England. The reasons for this break are complicated, and include Henry’s
desire for a divorce from his wife. Whatever the reasons, this break-up of a unified
Christian church in Great Britain led to a series of conflicts over the next 150 years,
culminating in violent civil war.

The war pitted Catholics who still believed in the authority of the Pope against
Protestants who believed that the monarch in Great Britain should have authority over
Christians. These disagreements were not only about who was in charge of the church.
They were also about specific matters of worship and prayer, such as what kind of
prayer book should be used and what dress the priests and ministers should wear. So,
the violence of the civil war was, in one sense, largely about a failure to accept diversity
on matters of religious belief and practice.

One influential philosopher mentioned above who lived during this period was John
Locke. Locke was trained as a physician. He was famous in his day for writing about
sensory perceptions, which combined his medical knowledge with philosophical ideas
about perception, memory, and language. But today he is most famous for his political
writings. His book, Second Treatise on Government, which appeared in 1691,
influenced the French and American revolutionaries as it argued that all peoples have
the right to resist an unjust government and should be able to create their own.

He also wrote a series of letters which are now called Letters on Toleration. The most
famous one, known as Letter Concerning Toleration, was published in 1689. In the
letter, Locke argues that the state should not be involved in religious matters, and that
these should be left up to individual conscience; that is, he argues that a society should
tolerate religious diversity in order to be more peaceful. Locke argued that if groups use
violence against each other in order to create new beliefs, those beliefs will not be real;
someone forced to believe something will not really believe it. So, in matters of religion,
violence will never succeed in converting others. The conflicts taking place in his day
were not just between Catholics and Protestants but between different sects within
Protestantism as well. Ironically, Locke does not allow toleration among all groups; he
says that those who do not believe in any god should not be accepted into society. He
also says in the letter that only if Catholics give up some of their more extreme beliefs
will they be able to be part of society. So, even in a letter on toleration, Locke is perhaps
not as tolerant as we would imagine he should be (Uzgalis, 2017). Some have argued
that Locke is not just advocating toleration but making the stronger claim for pluralism.
That is, he suggests that a society that has a diversity of religious groups will be a better
society because all people will be happy. This is not developed fully in Locke’s thought,
however, and most people see his work as a defense of toleration, the more limited
recognition of diversity rather than the embrace of diverse peoples and groups. Locke
has been an important thinker for liberals around the world, especially on this matter of
tolerance. But, of course, not all people would agree with Locke on this. The issues
faced by leaders such as Cyrus and philosophers such as Locke revolved largely
around diversity in religious belief.

Other issues of diversity emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries, largely around race,
ethnicity and nationalism. Versions of these ideas existed prior to this period, but only
with the rise of the nation state and the development of scientific theories around race
and development did they become issues of diversity. While the scientific theories that
focused on race have largely been discredited, especially as they were used to justify
practices of slavery, race continues to be a category by which individuals distinguish
themselves.

Into the 20th and 21st centuries, identities around gender and sexual orientation have
become more prominent as categories of diversity. Certainly, the category of gender is
one of the oldest, with the differences between men and women shaping much of
history. It is only with the rise of feminist thinking, partly in the Enlightenment, but more
fully developed in the 20th century, that gender distinctions have become political
issues around which theories of diversity have developed.

In the contemporary era, gender has become a more fluid idea in some contexts, with
arguments being made that individual should be able to change their genders, either
medically or simply through behavioral changes. Sexual orientation has also become a
politicized form of identity, one that has resulted in efforts to protect the rights of gay,
lesbian and bisexual individuals. The United Nations Office of the Human Rights
Commissioner has developed a programmed in support of diversity, tolerance and
pluralism in this area.

As is evident, there is a range of different identities that can create a diverse society.
These identities can be ones that we freely choose (religious belief) or ones with which
we are born (race, gender, ethnicity). It is not always clear which identities we choose to
adopt and which are we born with. One ethical question to consider would be if it
matters whether we are born with an identity or whether we choose it. For instance, in
the past, sexual orientation has been one that people believed was a choice. In the 20th
century, medical arguments emerged which said it was an identity with which we are
born. New medical procedures now allow people to choose their gender. In any ethical
evaluation, the matter of choice is crucial, though we should consider whether or not an
identity that is chosen is less valid than an identity with which we are born, and whether
it should matter in how we treat each other. One term that has emerged in recent years
which highlights the different parts of our identity is intersectionality. This term refers to
the interconnected nature of social identities such as race, gender, class and sexual
orientation that can define a person or a group. It was introduced by a legal scholar,
Kimberle Crenshaw, in an analysis of legal forms of discrimination (1991). The term is
useful because it allows us to see that while we might highlight one part of an
individual’s identity, even in a positive way, this might downplay other parts of that
person’s identity. Crenshaw was interested in the way that women’s rights activists did
not always take into account questions of race, as a black woman’s experience of
discrimination, for instance, might be very different than that of a white woman.

The life of Bayrd Rustin (1912-1987), the American civil rights activist, gives an example
of the challenges of intersectionality. Rustin was born in Pennsylvania to a Quaker
family. As an African-American, he became involved early in his life with efforts to end
discrimination in the United States. He also focused on the economic exploitation of not
only blacks but all people, briefly joining the American Communist Party. He was also
gay, which meant that he did not serve as a public face for the civil rights movement,
though he was actively involved with many of the leaders on this issue. Rustin fought
not only for civil rights for black Americans, but also for gay rights and the rights of those
who were in the lower classes. Combining these identities challenged many in the
American rights movement who believed that sexual orientation would distract the
cause of civil rights activists, but Rustin argued that these identities must be seen as
interconnected and the diversity they create must be embraced.

Cyrus was an individual leader who was faced with an ethical challenge: How can I
govern a diverse empire with a wide range of different belief systems? Locke used his
position as an intellectual to convince the leaders of his day how to act. And Rustin
served as an adviser to many leaders in the civil rights movement in the United States.
Leaders all over the world must make these decisions, but so must all of us in our
everyday lives. This Module emphasizes the importance of diversity. Students will
encounter ethical dilemmas related to diversity by reading first-hand accounts of actual
historical challenges faced by leaders, such as Cyrus, and moral role models. Video
excerpts will reinforce these case studies and challenges. Students will also discuss the
ways in which they would have handled similar challenges, and will thus be introduced
to both theoretical and real world issues of diversity along the way. Personal
participation, screenings, and mini-lectures will be complemented by reflective
assignments.

____________________________ooo0ooo________________________

Exercise 1: I am Malala

Directions: Reflect on the following questions, drawing on the pre-assigned reading of

the excerpt (pp. 183-190) from I Am Malala: (google this for your point of reference).
20 POINTS

Criteria:
Content – 10 points Relevance – 10 points Total – 20 points

 Can diversity principles ignore the teachings of prevailing local religions that in
this case might encourage discrimination against girls and women?

 What can Malala's father's behavior tell us about diversity, tolerance and
pluralism?

Exercise 2: DNA testing video

Directions: After watching the attached link, analyze the video and its implications by
addressing the following three questions: https://youtu.be/tyaEQEmt5ls

Criteria:
Content – 10 points Relevance – 10 points Total – 30 points

 Whether it is literally accurate or not, the spirit of the research suggests we are
all related and unaware of the full spectrum of our origins. Do you think that is
true?
  What are the implications of this thinking for your own sense of identity and that
of your family and friends?

 How does this sense of identity change your relationships with others and your
interaction with those who seem "different"?

References

 Chambers 21 st Century Dictionary (1999). Edinburgh, Chambers.

 Crenshaw, Kimberle (1991). Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity
politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, Vol. 43, No.
6, pp. 1241-1299.
 MacGregor, Neil (2013). Cyrus Cylinder: A great moment for the Middle
East. The Economist, 12 March. Video.
 Uzgalis, William (2017). John Locke. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
Edward N. Zalta, ed.