Ethics Vs. Honor

Honor is a necessary leadership trait. Ethics is managed honor. As such I resist the use of ethics as a substitute for honor.

Tribes make rules. The tribe's rules define the consequences for good and bad behaviors.

Tribes need rules. There are people willing to take actions that are bad for the tribe. If someone wants the protection of the tribe, then they need to know what is considered bad. Tribes enable the "ignorance is no excuse" trump card by codifying the rules.

Notice I don't say, "If someone wants the protection of the tribe, then they must follow the rules." Notice I don't say, "Rules define right and wrong." Just because there is a rule, this does not mean the behavior is wrong. Here I, again, pull out the "killing Hitler" trump card. At some point in Hitler's life is was definitely right to kill him. At that point, it was also definitely against the rules.

Self-Actualization is the top of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. In my terms "Right" equals "Morally Good" and "Honor" is the skill to decisively make a right decision.

Moral decisions are challenging. There is the challenge of "unintended consequences." There is the challenge of "the greatest good." The study of ethics is the study of right and wrong. Would you kill your mother if that would cure the world of aids? By studying ethics, people think these types of situations through before they occur and thus become prepared to act according to their concept of right and wrong. They have developed their honor code.

I resist using the use of ethics as a substitute for honor. Granted, there will be rules of right and wrong; however, these do not always serve the leader. Leaders take their tribes into territories and to heights they would not otherwise achieve. In these territories, the rules have not been written. In the absence of rules, leaders must be able to set the standard of good and bad. The ultimate height is moral goodness. By acting honorably, the leader sets the highest example that good behavior is expected at all times and in any situation.

Professions are types of tribes. Professional organizations write rules called the "ethics of the profession." Calling these rules, "ethics," suppresses leadership. Obviously professions codify good and bad behaviors. However, the term implies that every rule is about right and wrong, the ethical discussion is complete, and there is no room for leadership.

Is leadership becoming a profession? The evidence points this way. There are professional societies. There is professional development. There are journals. Will there become a code of good and bad in the profession of leadership? Probably, but I hope we don't call it "ethics." Will these be a managed list of "rules to follow?" I vote no: leaders lead!

P.S. Notice I also don't say, "Rules define the consequences for certain thoughts." I would not want to be a member of that tribe.