Morality and Ethics: Emotions
Morality and Ethics: Emotions
You have provided substantive information to lead the discussion in week 5. What measures should a person take to stay on course when emotions are triggered? What techniques will assist the leader in containing emotions? Respond with 500 words.
The natural human instinct tends to make value judgments when an individual is in an intellectual argument or situation that requires decision-making. A value judgment evaluates the excellence, appeal, or credibility of an individual or something (Moore & Parker, 2020). However, leaders should consciously avoid indulging in non-moral value judgments and embrace moral value judgments. This paper will discuss strategies for leaders to employ ethics to foster objectivity, morality, and justice during intellectual arguments.
The First Principle of Moral Reasoning (The Consistency Principle)
This principle of ethical reasoning is invaluable in promoting objectivity, morality, and justice during intellectual arguments. This principle encourages leaders to be consistent in their decision-making processes and outcomes. The leader should treat their subordinates or situations in the workplace with equality. For example, when two employees violate an organizational policy, the leader should take the same corrective measures since the employees have similar violations. Taking massive punitive measures on one employee and going easy on another violates the principle of consistency in ethics.
The consistency principle is a prerequisite for justice. Leaders who are consistent in their arguments and decision-making are predictable. Predictability implies that the employee expects particular outcomes or repercussions for every action that they take. For example, an employee who promotes quality of care and results in the workplace expects to get praise, recognition, and reward when the leader respects the ethical principle of consistency. However, a leader who does don conform to the principle of consistency may recognize one hard-working employee and not do so to another hardworking employee. In this situation, the leader will have violated justice in the workplace.
The Second Principle of Moral Reasoning
The second moral principle of moral reasoning has a connection with the first principle. This principle requires an individual, in this case, a leader, to provide the rationale that they are not violating the principle of consistency when they seem to be violating this principle. There are particular instances when a leader can fail to be consistent in their intellectual arguments. For example, a leader who rubbishes employees who take frequent breaks in the workplace may argue that it is okay to take regular breaks if you are pregnant. To promote justice, morals, and objectivity using the second principle of moral reasoning, the leader could argue that pregnant women have need more breaks while at the workplace since the growing uterus presses on the urinary bladder and increase the urgency of urination (Myles, Bennett & Brown, 2020). All employees should understand that the leader is not trying to be inconsistent in their arguments by favoring pregnant women, but the leader understands the physiological changes of pregnancy.
Other Perspectives of Moral Reasoning
Leaders can also employ various principles of moral reasoning such as consequentialism, utilitarianism, deontologism, and moral relativism when indulging in intellectual arguments. Utilitarianism could foster justice, morality, and objectivity during intellectual discussions. Utilitarianism encourages the leader to make a decision that benefits them and all the stakeholders involved in a particular situation (Duignan & West, 2017). Therefore, utilitarianism shuns subjectivity and fosters selflessness during arguments and decision-making activities by leaders. Morality and Ethics: Emotions
