Course : Ethical Leadership

Unit overview

Institutional ethics raises a fundamental question concerning the relationship between the purposes of institutions and the moral principles governing their operation. Drawing primarily upon Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue, this unit examines the distinction between practices and institutions, with particular reference to the internal goods associated with human excellence and the external goods of power, wealth and recognition. MacIntyre's criticism of modern managerialism provides the basis for considering whether administrative efficiency constitutes an adequate justification for the exercise of institutional authority.

The distinction is of particular importance where the pursuit of institutional objectives threatens the moral integrity of the practices which institutions are intended to sustain. An institution may successfully fulfil its organisational purposes without necessarily satisfying the ethical requirements arising from the nature of those practices. Hence, institutional success and moral justification cannot be regarded as conceptually identical.

A further question concerns the limits of institutional action. In this context, Robert Nozick's conception of individual rights as moral side constraints offers a distinct, albeit not necessarily incompatible in every respect, perspective on the justification of authority. The comparison does not presuppose a common philosophical foundation between MacIntyre and Nozick. Rather, it permits an examination of the extent to which institutional purposes may be pursued without compromising independent moral requirements.

The unit concludes by considering virtuous leadership as a form of practical moral responsibility, directed towards the preservation of institutional integrity while remaining subject to the normative limitations of authority.

Keywords

Utilitarian ethics; Jeremy Bentham and the principle of utility; John Stuart Mill and the classification of pleasures; Henry Sidgwick and universal benevolence; consequentialism; R. M. Hare’s criticism; Peter Singer and preference utilitarianism; maximisation of collective welfare; moral justification of leadership; individual rights and moral side constraints; Robert Nozick’s critique of consequentialism; justice and individual autonomy; moral responsibility; the normative limits of institutional authority

Required readings

• Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. "Consequentialism." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy  (Winter 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/consequentialism/.
• Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974, Chapter 3, "Moral Constraints and the State".

Complementary readings

• Singer, Peter. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 1, no. 3 (1972): 229–243. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2265052.
• Railton, Peter. “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 13, no. 2 (1984): 134–171. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2265273.
• Savulescu, Julian, and Evangelos D. Protopapadakis. “'Ethical Minefields' and the Voice of Common Sense: A Discussion with Julian Savulescu." Conatus - Journal of Philosophy 4, no. 1 (2019): 125–133. doi: https://doi.org/10.12681/cjp.19712.
• Wawrzyniak, Jan R. “The Utilitarian Stigma of Environmental Protection.” Conatus – Journal of Philosophy 3, no. 1 (2018): 89–110. https://doi.org/10.12681/conatus.18368.

• Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn, 1863, Chapters II and V, "What Utilitarianism Is" and "On the Connection between Justice and Utility".

•  Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999, §§ 5–6, "Classical Utilitarianism" and "Some Related Contrasts".