Leaderships Stealing with Reason

Outline

?I.???????????Introduction

A.???General Overview

B.????Research Question

C.????Methodology

?II.???????????Definition and Interpretation of Stealing

A.???Kantian Ethics

B.????Virtue Ethics

?III.???????????Buddhist Ethics/ Law of Karma

?IV.???????????Ethics of Good Leadership

?V.???????????Better Alternatives

?VI.???????????Conclusion

When there are two or more conflicting ethical values or beliefs, one must choose between them. Ethical dilemmas arise when "equally compelling ethical arguments for and against a specific course of action are recognized and a decision must be taken” (Noel-Weiss and Woodend, 2012). A circumstance involving contradicting decisions is referred to as an ethical dilemma. Professional practice should be focused on morally correct acts and behaviors. Unfortunately, deciding on the morally acceptable course of action is not always easy because decisions are taken in the grey areas of life where meaning is rife with wide complexities. A classic example is stealing to feed the poor. Stealing is legally and ethically wrong, but what if someone or an entire population is starving? Would it be morally acceptable for leaders to steal from the rich as long as the money’s going to the less fortunate? Using qualitative analysis, this paper will be presenting different arguments and points of views on the topic.

Religious books are absolute in nature. They don’t say you shouldn't steal if you have enough money or if your neighbor has been kind to you. Instead, they clearly note that you do not steal at all. It's vital to describe precisely what "stealing" means. The message that stealing is morally wrong, is widespread and largely uncontroversial, at least on the surface because of the commandment and influence of religions on social tradition in many parts of the world (Smith and Davis, 2000, p. 1465). For example, if you know that someone has been sentenced to jail for theft, it would be odd for you to doubt whether the person deserved to be punished for his or her crime. This may seem to be a simple task at first; stealing is simply taking another person's property without their permission. One might consider Robin Hood and his merry men to be a charitable group, one committed to robbing the wealthy and giving to the needy, thereby weakening the existing moral order.?

Two versions of the Kantian Categorical Imperative may be used to decide whether an act is morally permissible (acceptable). If the maxim behind an action is considered (the general concept that supports the action in the mind of the individual acting), then what should be considered is whether or not that maxim could be willed to become a universal law, according to the first formulation (Reynolds and Bowsie, 2004, p.257). According to the second formulation, what should be thought about is whether the action includes treating another person as a means to an end rather than an end in and of itself.?To see what advice Kantian Ethics could provide on stealing, consider an example of stealing where the question of whether it is morally permissible can be answered uncontroversially with a “no” (Reynolds and Bowsie, 2004, p.260). Consider a person who steals a toy from a child when their parent’s back is turned. The thief, in this case, seems to act on the maxim “take the property of others whenever you please”. It seems that we could not will this maxim to become a universal law, because if everyone took the property of others whenever they pleased, then the whole concept of property would break down (Bennis, 2000, p, 290). As a result, such a maxim could not be universalized without causing conflict (much like the example of breaking promises). Applying the Kantian Categorical imperative to the research question of this paper, stealing won’t be morally accepted in this case since leaders can’t go around and just steal from the rich people whenever they pleased to feed the less unfortunate. The whole concept of property as mentioned earlier would be broken down (regardless of the means through which these properties or finances were obtained). Therefore, no universal law would be agreed upon to achieve such a matter.

The virtue ethicist however is more concerned with the characteristics and dispositions of the person performing the actions than with the moral standing of those actions. Those who steal on the basis of righteousness, bravery, and noble persistence will be considered spiritual, while those who steal on the basis of rashness, guilt, and irascibility are not (Anderson, 2019). This shows something fascinating about how virtue ethics is related to theft. The same act committed by two different individuals may be interpreted differently from a moral standpoint, according to virtue ethics. Take, for example, stealing a loaf of bread from a supermarket and offering it to a starving and homeless woman on the street nearby. If anyone commits this act out of self-serving flattery, they are engaging in an excess vice. However, if someone else steals the same thing but does so in a noble manner founded on justice and generosity, they are behaving virtuously (Noel-Weiss and Woodened, 2012). So, based on virtue ethics, the leader has a noble purpose to feed and provide for the less fortunate which is a generous and just thing to do, even if it means stealing from the rich (also regardless of the hard work or corruption through which these rich people achieved their goals.) As long as the act is not committed for selfish purposes, then it becomes acceptable. In other words, as Machiavelli would say, “The ends justify the means”.?

The principle of merit is central to Buddhist ethics. It is a beneficial and defensive force that builds up as a result of positive actions, feelings, or deeds (Kienenger, 2018). Making merit is important in Buddhist practice because it produces good and agreeable results, decides the quality of the next life, and aids a person's progress towards enlightenment. Furthermore, merit is shared with a deceased loved one in order to assist them in their new life (Krishan, 1981, p.105) Despite modernization, merit-making is still important in traditional Buddhist countries, and it has had a big impact on their rural economies. It is related to ideals of purity and goodness. Prior to Buddhism, merit was associated with ancestor worship, but it took on a broader ethical significance in Buddhism (Kienenger, 2018). Merit is a force that arises from one's good deeds; it has the power to draw positive circumstances into one's life while also strengthening one's mind and inner well-being (Krishan, 1981, p. 110).?

Some would argue that stealing from corrupt corporations and individuals falls under and is subject to the Law of Karma, “whatever goes around comes around”.?Wilhelm Halbfass (2000) contrasts karma with the Sanskrit word kriya, stating that while kriya refers to the behavior as well as the steps and effort involved in it while karma refers to the executed action as a result of that activity, as well as the actor's motive behind an executed action or a planned action (described by some scholars as metaphysical residue left in the actor). Even your thoughts and feelings, which are energy in motion, are made up of energy (Dimmock and Fisher, 2017, p,185). In other words, all you do generates a corresponding energy that eventually returns to you in some form. How is this related to this paper’s research question? Corrupt corporations and individuals who make money through unethical means such as stealing, avoid paying taxes, selling drugs, slavery, human trafficking and so on will somehow suffer the consequences directly or indirectly eventually. Also, such people tend to believe that they are above the law and thus do what they please. In this case, not only stealing and making dirty money is considered as corrupt, but also violating the basic human rights of these individuals and breaking the laws are also put into question. So, a leader who steals from corrupt people is just giving back what was initially stolen in the first place which might not be considered as a bad thing after all.?

What about stealing from the hard-working and just rich people? This falls under the category of demerit Karma. What sense would it make if a leader, who is supposed to provide equally and fairly for all his population, steals from the hard-working class of society? Corporations and people who are just in their work, pay their taxes and respect the laws shouldn’t be robbed for the sake of giving away money for the less fortunate. From this perspective, two “bads” won’t add up to one “good” because it would be an endless cycle of Karma. The poor would then be living out of the “stolen money” of the rich, and the poor would then be subjected to the Karma or “curse” of living out of unfair stolen money, thus putting the “good” rich people under the category of Good Karma (since one way or another the money did eventually go for a good cause) as well as their good deeds and ethical contributions to life that will somehow also come back to them eventually. You will reap what you sow. To receive joy, happiness, affection, and friendship, one must first be joyful, peaceful, caring, and a true friend. Whatever one sends out into the universe returns to them (Kienenger, 2018). ?Karma isn't supposed to be a form of retribution. It exists for the purpose of education. How can anyone learn to be a good person if they are never told that harmful behavior is unacceptable? Only when an individual has developed the conditions for suffering does he or she suffer.

Ethical leaders often know how to behave in the best interests of their organizations. Even if it is controversial, unprofitable, or inconvenient, a leader who is ethical is not afraid to do what they sincerely believe is right, even if it is unpopular, unprofitable, or inconvenient (Bennis, 2000, p.260). So if stealing from the corrupt was considered as unethical because it would still be stealing, then the leader would still do it since it meant giving back the people what they initially lost. For example, in the MENA region and Africa in general, leaders should apply such policies because mafias and militias rule in those areas, making these two regions rich in poverty, starvation and lack of security. Militia groups in the Middle East pose a danger to regional stability and local governance. Since the Islamic State (ISIS) lost control of territory in Iraq, for example, paramilitary groups have often stepped in to fill the void, capitalizing on the same bad governance conditions that helped ISIS rise to power and continue to jeopardize regional stability (Smith and Davis, 2000, p. 1463). Also, mafias and militias believe that they are above the law and are willing to kill to prove their power (they control the resources of the country as well), thus all governmental and state authorities tend to compromise and work with them instead of putting them down. So, in this case, a leader might as well just steal and fool them for a good cause, and after taking everything back to the people, then the leader would be strong enough to act upon the law.

Some critics would say that every ethical dilemma offers better alternatives while others would say this concept is debatable based on the severity and complexity of the situation. Sometimes, a leader is faced with no choice but to use unethical means to do the right thing for the people and the state, and at other times, he might be faced with a situation or a problem that can be solved ethically. For example, let’s say that a leader came to be the leader of a country where chaos dominates the system, laws are not respected, militias and mafias are governing and dominating the resources, illegal money is being made, day after day people are getting poorer and so on. In this case, how could he make a change in the system without getting killed for opposing let’s say the powerful ones in the state? Who would the people dare to listen and follow his path without fearing the consequences of their actions? Therefore, how would the leader create reform and give back the rights of the people without the support of the people? The leader could for example raise his concern to the international community and ask for support in order to create reforms and give back the people their rights, but what if the country’s situation benefits the international leaders? The best example would be the on-going struggle in the MENA region as mentioned earlier where international powers benefit economically. He could also offer protection and security for his people and promise to ensure a better life and give back the rights and freedoms stolen from them, but how would he do that when no resource is available and the government’s institutions all work with these militias and mafias? In my opinion, it would be acceptable for the leader at this point to manipulate those corrupt bodies into thinking that he’s on their sides and then steal bit by bit every bit of power, resources, money, rights and freedoms they govern to give it back to the people. This way, the rule of law would then prevail and justice would be served at its best.

To conclude, it would be acceptable to steal if the intentions of the latter were to give back the people what was initially taken from them. As virtue ethicists would say, it is okay to steal from a cheating, greedy rich man in order to save the lives of many poor families, and as Buddhists would say, you only get what you deserve in life. If you do good, then you receive good, and if you do bad, then you receive bad. Good leaders not only need to be ethical and honest, but also need to do what’s right and better for their country and the people no matter what the consequences of their actions will be. If their actions are based on good intentions, then the “ends justify the means”. We humans have established conceptions of destiny and predestination; however, there is no such thing. Anything that has happened to a human being has been instituted by him at some stage in the past, either in this incarnation or in a previous incarnation. It's leftover from something he or she did recently or in the past (Anderson, 2019).

References

Anderson, W. (2019). Virtue Ethics. Retrieved from https://schoolworkhelper.net/virtue-ethics/

Bennis, W. (2000). Leadership Theory and Administrative Behavior: The Problem of Authority. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4(3), 259-301. doi: 10.2307/2390911

Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017). Stealing. In Ethics for A-Level (pp. 183-197). Cambridge, UK: Open Book. Retrieved March 21, 2021, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1wc7r6j.15

Kienenger, R. (2018). The Law of Karma. Retrieved from https://the-ultimate-frontier.org/metaphysics/Law of Karma.htm

Krishan, Y. (1981). THE BUDDHIST DOCTRINE OF KARMA AND DEVELOPMENT OF INDIAN RELIGIOUS THOUGHT AND SOCIETY. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 62(1/4), 103-120. Retrieved March 21, 2021, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/41693669

Noel-Weiss, J., Cragg, B., & Woodend, A. K. (2012, July 23). Exploring how IBCLCs manage ethical dilemmas: A qualitative study. Retrieved from https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6939-13-18

Reynolds, S., & Bowie, N. (2004). A Kantian Perspective on the Characteristics of Ethics Programs. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 275-292. Retrieved March 21, 2021, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3857911

Smith, S., & Davis, A. (2000). Ethical Dilemmas: Conflicts among Rights, Duties, and Obligations. The American Journal of Nursing, 80(8), 1463-1466. Retrieved from https://doi:10.2307/3462695 ??