Societies are made up of distinct norms, values, and practices that govern human behavior and relationships. Such norms determine what is right and wrong. Depending on a given perspective, individuals behave or act in a given way. Players react to victims or given situations according to their ethical philosophies. The foundation of normative ethics can be evaluated from utilitarian, deontological, or virtues perspectives.
What do you think were the central unethical decisions that make this module’s case worth learning about and why?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The module readings invoke irrational thinking, retaliation, and misuse of our self-will, as addressed by Maureen O’Connell, William Klepper, and Stanley Grenz. O’Connell, in “Ethics in the Twenty-First Century believes the ground for ethical thinking is changing from what was thought to be solid to something uncertain, luminal, or uncomfortable . Accordingly, old perspectives may not solve the currents problems at hand. Irrationality is a stumbling block to how people interact. It may oppose new paradigms such as smart technology and social networking sites, improving human relationships, and solving other issues (O’Connell). Klepper in “Volunteering for Conflict” uses Smith to evoke the state of retaliation. Smith feels unwanted and mistreated by the Smalltown Fire Company. A section of the company’s stakeholders was non-committal to Smith’s propositions which could have saved her career ( Klepper, 2018). Feeling like an outsider, Smith had no choice but to leave the company. Lastly, in “The Moral Quest,” Stanley Grenz highlights the misuse of self-will by Christians as immoral ( Grenz, 2016). He believes Christians have failed to go by the ethical teachings of the Bible.
How do you think the authors and presenters from this module would respond to this case?
In the case of irrational thinking in creating relationships, O’Connell would challenge the players to embrace conscious assumptions. Victims may apply religious ethics which encourage positive human interactions . Besides, O’Connell would advise such individuals to usher in new social paradigms that could shape their behavior and actions. Regarding Smith dilemmatic condition, Klepper would recommend Smith to accept the decisions made despite being unbearable. Based on Hobbes’s Contractarianism video, the player may advise Smith to act morally about her self-interests. She should rationally analyze the best strategy for getting her job back . Grenz and Alexander Wagner in the Ted Talk would advise individuals to be honest with their actions ( Wagner, 2016).
What more ethical alternatives were open to the various players, and what might have changed for them personally and for their organization(s) had they taken them?
O’Connell gives irrational thinkers the alternative of exploring new paradigms. Irrational thinking in promoting relationships is associated with sticking to biased old norms, values, and practices. People should are encouraged to explore modernity and globalization. Also, she urges irrational thinkers to adopt religious ethics. Klepper and Contractarianism video gives the player the alternative of getting away with the frustration ( Klepper, 2018). The player is advised to either adhere to her self-interests of taking the job back or acting morally by walking away. Lastly, in his book and Alexander Wagner in the video, Grenz provides the players with an opportunity to change their ways by emulating Jesus to acting with their self-interests. Grenz holds that Christians’ misunderstanding of the Bible teachings is the reason behind feeling guilt and unethical ( Grenz, 2016). Wagner advises the audience to be honesty by acting according to their intrinsic values .
What were the primary leadership lessons you received from this case ?
Indeed, I have learned several leadership lessons from the cases discussed above. From O’Connell’s observation on ethics in the twenty-first century, I have noted that self-awareness is critical. A leader should be on the frontline to understand new paradigms that are likely to affect the team or organization. Currently, organizations are experiencing rapid social, cultural, economic, and political changes that need to be considered. Smith’s case elaborates on the difficulties of leadership. Leaders are sometimes faced with dilemmas. Also, the situation points out the necessity of communication. Where communication between members is insufficient, decision-making will be slowed or ineffective. Grenz’s case evokes the need for integrity and respect. Like Christians should act with dignity towards God, so is the leader to subordinates. Also, one should respect the authorities just like the teachings.
How do you think the authors and presenters from this module would respond to your personal case?
Accordingly, O’Connell would respond by encouraging a broadening of perspectives (O’Connell). Self-awareness comes with a thorough analysis of beliefs, thoughts, feelings, and emotions about phenomena. Self-awareness applies empathy which gets rid of irrational thinking. Klepper would advise control of emotions. Holding grudges or planning for other malicious activities would worsen a conflict rather than diagnosing it. At the same time, the Contractarianism player advises a moral and rational response towards disputes ( CrashCourse, 2016). Grenz would encourage me to listen more to the mind rather than the body. Bodily needs deceive one to act against the will. On the other hand, correct cognitions and emotions lead one towards the right path. In the Ted Talk clip, Wagner would challenge me to consider the consequences of acting against self-will ( Wagner, 2016). It is prudent to work according to our intrinsic values.
What concepts has this module’s content added to your answers to Willard’s worldview questions? Based on that, how would you now restate those answers?
The module’s concepts of human relationships, behaviors, and religious ethics uncovered some truths that may answer Willard’s worldview questions . Currently, I can be able to explain why science and religion clash using Grenz’s ideologies. Just like Christian’s faith clashes with Bible teachings, so are religion and science (Grenz, 2016). The scope of science emphasizes empiricism, while religious beliefs are superstitious. Religion condemns the materialistic view displayed by science, while science denies existence of reality outside the world. Besides, I may attempt to answer value of truth using Grenz’s perspectives. Truth helps us to make better judgments and decisions in contradicting situations. Life is a journey of ups and downs such that knowing the truth will lead one towards the correct path. Besides, I can answer Willard’s question on what it means to be human by applying Alexander Wagner’s Ted Talk on honesty. Being a human being involves showing intrinsic values such as love to others.
References
Grenz, S. J. (2016). The Moral Quest: Foundations of Christian ethics . Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
O’connell, M. Chapter 1: Ethics in the twenty-first century: Spheres of relationship.
Klepper, W. (2018). Volunteering for conflict? Columbia Business School. Columbia CaseWorks, 1-10.
Wagner, A. (2016, November). What really motivates people to be honest in business. TED Talk [Video file]. https://www.ted.com/talks/alexander_wagner_what_really_motivates_people_to_be_honest_in_business?language=en
CrashCourse. (2016, November 29). Contractarianism: Crash Course Philosophy #37 [Video file]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Co6pNvd9mc
