Discuss the below in a 200 words each:
1 The philosophy of Kantianism was developed by German philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), and is comprised of a simple set of rules that argues that "moral duties and imperatives are categorical - they should be obeyed without exception" (Johnson, 2016, p. 42). In this regard, Kantian's believe a leader should always do what is morally and ethically right despite the consequences. Johnson (2016) further explains that the philosophy of Kantianism is essentially egalitarian, in that "what is right for one is right for all" (p. 42). Essentially, there is a moral obligation in maintaining consistency in behavior, respect, and dignity of all people, and violating these rights would be unethical and is "disrespectful and deny human value and potential" (Johnson, 2016, p. 43).
In the journal article, A Kantian theory of leadership, Bowie (2000) discusses Kant's moral philosophy, noting, "leaders need not use followers as means to their own ends" (p. 185). In the article, Bowie (2000) uses Wall Street to highlight the temptations of using followers as a means to influence the stock market to benefit shareholders. Although competitive pressures to use stakeholders to inflate the value of a stock and increase shareholder wealth can be overwhelming, Kantian beliefs declare "such practices would not be genuinely moral acts. Such actions would not result from good will" (Bowie, 2000, p.185). Moreover, Bowie (2000) emphasizes that Kantian morals and choices should be "consistent with reason, and that the action should be based on a maxim that can be universally endorsed and followed" (p. 186). In short, articulating that to be morally accepted by Kantians, the techniques that should be adopted and implemented on Wall Street should do more than merely increase the wealth of the shareholders.
To conclude, I do not completely embrace all facets of the moral philosophy of Kantianism, specifically in regards to using followers as a means to an end. Using Bowie's (2000) example to expand on my stance, using shareholders to increase stock market value and profits is one of the major factors driving the economy. Conversely, I do agree with Bowie (2000) in that "a central task of the leader is to respect and enhance autonomy of followers. The Kantian leader teaches followers to become leaders" (p. 192). As leaders, it is our responsibility to grow more leaders, and one way of doing that in through followership, and mentoring those you lead to not only follow the orders delivered to achieve a goal, but to take the reigns and lead in their own right. In essence, this aspect of the Kantian philosophy demonstrates "the ‘how to be' leader knows that people are the organizations greatest asset and in a word, behavior, and relationships she or he demonstrates this powerful philosophy." (Bowie, 2000, p. 192).
2 The term egalitarianism describe the "social organization of peoples who have been empirically observed to practice a cultural ethos which encourages sharing, peaceful cooperation, and equality, while discouraging property accumulation, status-seeking, conflict, and authoritarianism" (Townsend, n.d.). In essence, a fancy synonym for kumbaya. The journal article I selected discusses how business must continue to look at corporate governance through the lens of theorist John Rawls (1999), but with a more rational approach
Neron (2015) makes the claim that an egalitarian marketplace can be just as dangerous as a hierarchical marketplace. "Business" since it term was coined, has long been faced with the charge that it fosters inequality. Many critic would argue that the current status of income distribution is unfair and unethical and that it must be changed. However, Neron (2015) concludes that a relationship approach egalitarianism is the best approach because it moves our society away from the hunter-gatherer mindset, and takes us into a marketplace where everyone contributes and receives equally based on outputs within the system in place. More so, since it can be difficult to explain to the masses why doctors make the same as sanitation workers. Both deal in health and safety and require certain skills, but one requires a higher level of critical analysis and decision-making. Additionally, not everyone can thrive in an egalitarian setting (Neron, 2015).
I do agree with Neron's (2015) conclusion. In an egalitarianism company, managers don't have large offices with expensive furnishings. Instead, they work in efficient spaces that are identical to those that other workers use. Tony Hsieh, the CEO for Zappos, is famous for this type of workplace environment and it works. However, these companies also face problems as workers attempt to adapt to an egalitarian structure, especially if they come from backgrounds in traditional, hierarchical companies.
3 I selected Utilitarianism as my topic for this Discussion Post. I was able to find a vast amount of information related to this topic in the Brandman Virtual Library, but the scholarly article I chose to review is called, Hume and Utilitarianism: Another Look at an Age-Old Question. This article provided information on what views and elements Utilitarianism entails, as well as how this topic first appeared in the field.
The first philosopher who founded Utilitarianism was Jeremy Bentham during the seventeenth century. Utilitarianism is the theory that an action should only be carried out if the results of this action bring the most pleasure or happiness to the most amount of people compared to any of the alternative outcomes (Reichlin, 2016).
Utilitarianism is thus defined by four elements: a) a consequentialist theory of right action, definition rightness in terms of maximal good; b) a hedonist theory of the good, defining goodness in terms of pleasure; c) impartiality in the calculus of utility, and d) a normative, action-guiding outlook (Reichlin, 2016, p. 2).
Jeremy Bentham was the first philosopher who incorporated all four of these elements into the theory of Utilitarianism, which is why he has received the most credit for this theory even up until today. According to Reichlin (2016), "A number of seventeenth and eighteenth-century philosophers did argue in favor of one or two of the four main elements of utilitarianism, but no philosopher before Bentham endorsed all of them (p. 2).
In addition to the articles I found in the Brandman Virtual Library, I took a few Philosophy courses throughout my undergraduate studies and a very well-known statement about Utilitarianism that was emphasized in these courses is "the greatest good for the greatest number." Although, I do understand the general concept of Utilitarianism, I personally don't fully agree with the ideology behind utilitarianism as I think it's very situational based. I definitely see how the concept of this theory can be considered morally "right" in some situations, but when it comes to scenarios where the lives of others are endangered, I don't see how that is ethical. In one of the Philosophy courses I took, the professor had provided our class with the example of five people stranded on an island. Four of the five people decided to kill and consume the fifth person in order to save the maximum number of lives. This example really stuck with me over the years because yes, I do see how this follows the Utilitarian theory as majority of the people stranded on the island were saved, which brought the most pleasure, but how is this morally right? I'm sure there could be the argument that the fifth person was already dying and they killed him or her in order to the person out their misery, but this may not always be the case. I don't believe killing an innocent person in order to save the majority of others is morally right, especially if the person being killed has no say in this decision.