The major unethical decisions from the module’s case emanate from official responsibility. Same-sex marriage has been one of the most controversial elements in different parts of the world today. Its legalization has met significant criticism, especially from the moral point of view. The two major unethical decisions are D. Bruce Hanes’s action of issuing a marriage certificate to two married women after Pennsylvania banned same-sex marriage and Kim Davis’s action of refusing to recognize same-sex marriage even after it was made lawful in Kentucky. The two scenarios present ethical dilemmas that are worth learning about because of their association with official responsibility. Before assuming official responsibilities, government officials take an affirmative oath to abide by the US constitution and abide by the recognized laws of the land. It is worth learning about the case for individuals to understand whether there are cases in which officials are allowed to disobey the law legitimately.
Authors and presenters from this module would respond to this case from an ethical, moral and Christian worldview. CrashCourse, for example, would come up with an argument based on a Christian worldview but specifically oriented to catholic doctrines (CrashCourse, 2016). Business and Leadership at Bethel University would address this from a theological point of view. These two sources would probably affirm that there is no need to legalize same-sex marriage, and officials should stand for their moral beliefs and faith when faced with a related dilemma. Jonathan Haidt is likely to argue against the legitimization of same-sex marriage, supporting his argument from the tenets of moral psychology. Grenz (1998) is also expected to argue from a Christian worldview perspective, hence would support Kim Davis’ actions. Lastly, the second CrashCourse source would approach the case from a moral point of view, allowing the individuals involved to decide based on what they consider morally upright.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
One of the ethical considerations that was available for the various players is the upholding of the rule of law. This is critical because of the need to eliminate law plurality, an aspect that might bring about significant dilemmas in the implementation of the law. Another alternative would be for the stakeholders who are behind the implementation of the law to ensure there is consent among government officials on implementing the law. There should have been other peripheral policies and provisions that would have been enacted or put in place to increase understanding between all the parties involved. If these alternatives were available, there would have been negative and positive outcomes. A change would have been realized in law implementation, a factor that would have in turn brought about problems related to freedom of expression. Additionally, with the alternatives, there would have been a distinction between organizations and individuals who support and those who do not support the statute, hence, knowledge creation among masses about where to seek help concerning same-sex marriage officiating.
One of the lessons learnt is that there are a myriad of challenges in leadership, most of which evolve with changes in the environment. This, hence, call for contingent approaches to different issues. Another lesson is the need for leaders to not only uphold the rule of law and what is generally acceptable but, on the other hand, for them to stand for what they believe is morally upright, regardless of the consequences. Most importantly, due to the dilemma resulting from the implementation of the legislation, I have realized the need for collaborative efforts in resolving public interest issues. Since the issue was majorly related to the marriage act, there was a need for extensive collaboration between leaders and the public to give opinions and come up with laws that are not contradictory. In the end, however, regardless of the leadership style employed, there are bound to be dilemmas.
Both presenters on CrashCourse would respond to my personal case based on my instinct, moral thoughts, and belief in the truth. Particularly, my instinct would be impacted my worldview. The presenter on Business and Leadership at Bethel University would respond to my case based on what is believed to be the ultimate truth based on religion. Jonathan Haidt is likely to agree with my reasoning based on the morals and ethics that it is based on. Finally, Grenz (1998) would react according to Christian doctrines, both catholic and protestant views.
Besides reinforcing my understanding of worldviews and why different systems interact in the way they do, the module content has added to my answers to Willard’s worldview in a significant way. The major additions are what morality is, the ultimate truth, and the ideal response to a given dilemma. With the knowledge from the course, I can now restate these questions to be dependent on individual moral beliefs and what they believe to be the fundamental truth.
References
Business and Leadership at Bethel University. (2019, October, 8). Worldview, Ethics & Leadership Module 2 [Video].YouTube.https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=6YgNH1WTraQ&feature=emb_imp_woyt
CrashCourse. (2016, September, 1). Divine Command Theory: Crash Course Philosophy #33 [Video].YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=wRHBwxC8b8I&feature=emb_imp_woyt
CrashCourse. (2016, November, 8). Natural Law Theory: Crash Course Philosophy #34 [Video].YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=r_UfYY7aWKo&feature=emb_imp_woyt
Grenz, S. J. (2016). The moral quest: Foundations of Christian ethics . InterVarsity Press.
Haidt, J. (2008, March). The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives [Video]. TED. https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_the_moral_roots_of_liberals_and_conservatives?language=en#t-111517
