Ethical and moral leaderships- do they really matter?

Ethical and moral leaderships- do they really matter?

Many sectors are calling for ethical leadership to initiate change in our society. But what makes leadership ethical? Will ethical leadership solve the ills of our society? And who are qualified to become ethical leaders? And do our people know what ethical leadership is and will they accept it as a catalyst for change?

Other sectors are calling for moral leaders to come out from their shells. Is this a different variety of leadership? Are moral leaders different from ethical leaders? Is moral leadership the answer to the problems besetting our country? Is ethics after all similar to morality?

My daughter Regine, a 3rd year philosophy student of UST and a dean’s lister, supplied me the answer. She said “personally I venture to say that such definitions of morality and ethics mentioned are high-flown and theoretical. I propose a simpler way of defining them and an easier way of differentiating them without deviating from their core ambits of the concepts of good and bad. In fact, if there is a common ground between morality and ethics it is that both are always anchored on the concepts of good and bad. Let us say what is considered good or bad in morality mirrors good and bad also in ethics.

“God’s commandments either from the Old or New Testaments are generalized rules of conduct. Obeying them renders our deeds good; otherwise, bad. Hence, they as generalized rules are used as standards of human acts. This is the realm of morality. Any generalized rule of conduct which man passively accepts as gauge or measurement of human acts is morality. Man, in other words, looks up to these generalized rules as absolute and static. Man cannot motu propio modify them to suit his moral interests. These rules of conduct were handed over to man, like the Ten Commandments, without man’s hint of turning them down. Man, in this case, is pictured to be at the receiving end, unmoving, and unquestioning.

"When man is faced with a moral dilemma of either following these generalized rules or not, then it is the realm of ethics that is involved here. In other words, man operates on a moral choice, makes a reflective decision, weighs his options, and cautiously moves towards a moral decision. In fine, ethics, unlike morality is process-centered and oriented. For instance, a father is considering theft as a means to enrich himself and his family and is yet unresolved whether or not he would pursue it because of a regulative principle like the 7th Commandment that says “Thou shall not steal.” It is clear here that the father, aware of the said commandment, is not impulsive or hasty in his decision but is careful to make a thoughtful moral decision before plunging into any display of a corresponding human act. This is ethics in its essence- there is deliberation and caution.”

The distinction is quite clear. Basing from that clear-cut division, ethical leaders are action-driven and purpose-oriented. In their policy-formulation or decision-making process, they take into consideration what is good for the welfare of the community. However, there should be a modicum of mutuality between the ethical leaders and the people being led. The people should freely agree and accept the purposes of the ethical leaders knowing that they are for their own good. The acceptance by the people of ethical leadership and its purposes must be, to be repetitious, free and they should not just acquiesce out of fear and autocratic control. It would be useless to have ethical leaders if the people do not know and freely consent to the purposes of the ethical leaders. The influence relationship between the ethical leaders and the people would be assured if they have common or shared values, purposes, and goals. Short of saying, we need ethical followers as much as we need ethical leaders. There is no sense of calling for ethical leadership if the people themselves are not ethical.

Moral leadership is likened to shutting up oneself in an ivory tower, undisturbed and without regard to the welfare of the people. These leaders are stuffed with moral truths but they have to be induced to actions so that they become ethical leaders. It is tantamount to ethical hazards if moral leaders are paralyzed by their inability to influence the people with the values, goals and purposes that they have to share. They are just there as models of moral leadership, inauthentic and phony leaders because they miserably fail to influence the lives of the people with the moral truths they know or the gospel values they hold. Moral leaders are imposters if they are not ethical leaders. Conversely ethical leaders are also great pretenders if they govern with no moral truths to proclaim and if their interests take precedence over the interests of the people.

The whole point is simply this: ethical leaders should internalize moral truths known to moral leaders and moral leaders should openly incarnate and put them into practice like what the ethical leaders do. What kind of leadership do we need then? We need a combination between ethical and moral leadership. We need moral and ethical leaders who know the moral truths, and without pretense, promote and share them to the people in a free and non-coercive environment.