MGMT 618 American Military University Ethics in Leadership Essay

Instructions:

After reading the Lesson Three material, go the the following link and watch the TED Talk by Sam Harris entitled Science Can Answer Moral Questions:

Afterward, please write an essay addressing the following questions.

1. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of association are all values that we as Americans hold dear. Yet, we sometimes encounter ethical quandaries when individuals or groups who seek to proliferate ideas that the majority would consider nefarious demand statuses of recognition and privilege normally reserved for more widely-accepted perspectives. Consider

this article

on the implications of 501(c)(3) tax status awards for racist, white-nationalist propaganda organizations. Consider the arguments on both sides of this public debate. On one hand, you have the argument that all Americans (and organizations) should be afforded equal rights, notwithstanding different points of view (remember Evelyn Beatrice Hall: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”). On the other hand, you have the arguments that government tax incentives should not be subsidizing hate groups, and that the groups in question are unworthy of non-profit status because they operate in a deceptive manner (with misleadingly benign names) and are not really “educating” as the spirit of the law intended. What say you on this issue? Did the IRS err in these cases? To what rights are such groups entitled? What statuses would you—or would you not—confer upon such groups?

2. Suppose that someone who reads your answers to the first part of this assignment accuses you of bias. Another reader states that your answer is “just your opinion,” and that there is nothing that makes your opinion more valid than anyone else’s. Defend your position. How would you counter such charges? What makes your answer more than just opinion?

Submission Instructions:

This assignment should at a minimum contain 2,000 words of content (double spaced). Word count does not include headings, cover pages, references, or question text (if you choose to include it in your paper); I am looking for 2,000 words of substance. Your paper should be in APA format including a properly formatted cover page (abstracts are optional) and a reference page with at least three (3) NEW references (“new” here means references that you have not already used in previous assignments in this course). Providing additional references to your assignments demonstrates your desire to conduct additional research on the topic area, and can improve your research skills.

With all assignments, include properly formatted in-text citations within the body of your work for each of your listed references so the reader can ascertain your original thoughts or ideas as well as the portion of your work that is credited to credible sources. It is very important to identify work from other sources to ensure that proper credit is provided to researchers in the field. This assignment uses Turn It In for originality verification.

Submit the weekly written assignment as an MS Word attachment (.doc or .docx format). A recommended font is 12pt Times New Roman. DO NOT include discussion board answers with your formally written assignment submission.

Rubric for this assignment found in the Resources section.

Four white nationalist
groups given nonprofit
status, permission to raise
nearly $8M in taxdeductible donations
By LARRY MCSHANE
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS |
DEC 22, 2016 | 1:07 PM
Jared Taylor, head of the New Century group, acknowledged his organization
raises money strictly for the benefit of the white race.(Dmitry Lovetsky/AP)
Racism now comes with a write-off.
Four prominent white nationalist groups received the government go-ahead to
raise nearly $8 million in tax-deductible donations over the last 10 years.
Promote health. Save lives. Serve the vulnerable. Visit who.int
ADVERTISEMENT
The New Century Foundation, the National Policy Institute, the Charles Martel
Society and the VDare Foundation were all declared valid nonprofits, The
Associated Press reported Thursday.
Jared Taylor, head of the New Century group, acknowledged his organization
raises money strictly for the benefit of the white race. The 22-year-old group has
collected more than $2 million in the last nine years.
PAID POST
W hat Is This?
Family hear hissing in wall, make stomach-churning find
SEE MORE
Sponsored Content by
“We hold it in trust for the white race,” said Taylor. “We take this seriously. This is
not something we do for fun or profit. This is our duty to our people.”
The Yale-educated Taylor said his group has never hidden its agenda and meets
all the standards for none-mailprofit status.
Advertisement
Peter Brimelow, head of the Connecticut-based VDare Foundation, saw his
group raise close to $4.8 million between 2007-15, according to the AP.
He told the news agency that the election of Donald Trump as president should
help extend a three-year stretch of increased donations.
“We have every reason to believe it will,” he told the AP in an email.
The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that Brimelow’s website “regularly
publishes articles by prominent white nationalists, race scientists and antiSemites.”
Samuel Brunson, a tax professor at Loyola University in Chicago, said the tax
break for the quartet of pro-white groups send the wrong message.
The tax status “should make people uncomfortable that the government is
subsidizing groups that espouse values that are incompatible with most
Americans,” said Brunson.
Michael Dobzinski, spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service, said the agency
doesn’t comment on individual nonprofits.
The Martel Society is based in Georgia and headed by deep-pocketed publisher
William Regnery II.
The group, which raised $568,526 between 2007-14, hailed Trump’s presidential
campaign as a “game changer” for whites opposed to multiculturalism and
immigration.
And the National Policy Institute, based in Montana, is run by Richard Spencer —
the man responsible for popularizing the term “alternative right.”
Spencer, whose group collected $442,482 in contributions between 2007-12,
hosted the recent Washington conference where audience members raised their
arms in a Nazi salute to Trump’s presidential victory.
“America, at the end of the day, belongs to white men,” Spencer said two weeks
ago while speaking at Texas A&M.
“Our bones are in the ground. We own it. At the end of the day America can’t
exist without us. We defined it. This country does belong to white people —
culturally, politically, socially, everything.”
Graduate Writing Rubric
APUS
Assignment
Rubric
Graduate
Writing
Thesis
Introduction
EXEMPLARY
LEVEL
(9-10) Student
develops a
focused and
sophisticated
research
question or
thesis that
enhances the
scholarly
discussion of
questions and
ideas that are
important to
scholars in the
discipline.
(9-10) The
writing provides
an exceptional
roadmap for the
essay. In
addition, the
introduction
includes meets
all of the
following
criteria:
● The
introduction
contextualiz
Revised 5/3/2016, Dr. Jennifer Douglas
ACCOMPLISHE
D
LEVEL
DEVELOPING
LEVEL
BEGINNING
LEVEL
POINTS
(7-8) Student
develops a
focused and
sophisticated
research
question or
thesis, engaging
with the
questions and
ideas of the
field.
(5-6) Student
develops a
research
question that is
clear, but not
focused or
sophisticated,
and may or may
not engage with
questions and
ideas important
in the discipline.
(0-4) Student
develops a
research
question that is
unclear or
confused, or
does not at all
engage with the
questions and
ideas important
to scholars in
the discipline.
10/10
(7-8) The
writing provides
a clear roadmap
for the essay. In
addition, the
introduction
includes meets
at least 3 of
the following
criteria:
● The
introduction
contextualiz
es the thesis
(5-6) The
writing provides
a basic roadmap
for the essay. In
addition, the
introduction
includes meets
at least 2 of
the following
criteria:
● The
introduction
contextualiz
es the thesis
(0-4) The
writing provides
an incomplete
roadmap for the
essay. In
addition, the
introduction
includes meets
fewer than 2
of the following
criteria:
● The
introduction
contextualiz
10/10
COMMENTS
Graduate Writing Rubric
es the thesis
statement
by referring
to larger
issues in the
discipline.
● The
introduction
provides
rationale for
pursuing the
thesis by
demonstrati
ng a
research
need or
question.
● The
introduction
articulates
how the
paper will
address the
key question
or issue
being
studied.
● The
introduction
refers to
relevant,
appropriate
scholarly
literature.
(18-20) The
argument builds
Revised 5/3/2016, Dr. Jennifer Douglas



statement
by referring
to larger
issues in the
discipline.
The
introduction
provides
rationale for
pursuing the
thesis by
demonstrati
ng a
research
need or
question.
The
introduction
articulates
how the
paper will
address the
key question
or issue
being
studied.
The
introduction
refers to
relevant,
appropriate
scholarly
literature.
(14-16) Minor
gaps in logic



statement
by referring
to larger
issues in the
discipline.
The
introduction
provides
rationale for
pursuing the
thesis by
demonstrati
ng a
research
need or
question.
The
introduction
articulates
how the
paper will
address the
key question
or issue
being
studied.
The
introduction
refers to
relevant,
appropriate
scholarly
literature.
(10-12) Logical
arguments may
es the thesis
statement
by referring
to larger
issues in the
discipline.
● The
introduction
provides
rationale for
pursuing the
thesis by
demonstrati
ng a
research
need or
question.
● The
introduction
articulates
how the
paper will
address the
key question
or issue
being
studied.
● The
introduction
refers to
relevant,
appropriate
scholarly
literature.
(0-8) Fuzzy
logic may be
20/20
Graduate Writing Rubric
Argument and
Synthesis of
Knowledge
logically upon
the thesis with
research-based,
disciplineappropriate
supporting
facts, evidence,
and/or data.
and argument
may appear.
Supporting
facts, evidence,
and/or data are
evident.
Student clearly
describes major
methodologies
and practices of
the field and
implements
them in creative
and innovative
ways.
Student
describes major
methodologies
and practices of
the field
accurately, uses
them
appropriately in
the project.
The writing
demonstrates
the ability to
interpret,
analyze, and
synthesize
information to
The writing
demonstrates
the ability to
interpret and
analyze
information to
support the
argument.
Revised 5/3/2016, Dr. Jennifer Douglas
be one-sided, or
incomplete, or
may be based
on inadequate
sources.
evident and
adequate
supporting
evidence is
lacking.
Student
describes major
methodologies
and/or practices
of the field, but
may have some
omissions or
problems in
implementation
(such as using
an adequate
methodology,
rather than an
exemplary one).
Student’s work
does not
accurately or
thoroughly
describe the
major
methodologies
and practices of
the field, may
implement them
inappropriately.
The writing
demonstrates
the ability to
summarize
information that
supports the
argument.
The writing
demonstrates
the ability to
refer to external
information with
limited ability to
Graduate Writing Rubric
advance the
argument.
Sources and
Support
(18-20) Student
communicates,
organizes and
synthesizes
complex and
contradictory
information
from multiple
sources to
advance
knowledge in
the discipline at
a professional
level.
Student
accurately
quotes,
paraphrases,
and cites
information in
ways that are
true to the
original context
with no errors.
(9-10) The
writing flows
Revised 5/3/2016, Dr. Jennifer Douglas
support the
argument.
(14-16) Student
clearly and
effectively
communicates,
organizes and
synthesizes
complex and
contradictory
information
from multiple
sources to
advance
knowledge in
the discipline.
Student quotes,
paraphrases and
cites
information
correctly and
consistently,
using
information in
ways that are
true to the
original context,
with minimal
errors.
(7-8) The
writing is
(10-12) Student
communicates
results from
various sources,
but the
information is
not clearly and
effectively
communicated
or does not
advance
knowledge in
the discipline.
Student quotes,
paraphrases and
cites
information
mostly correctly
and
consistently, in
ways that are
largely true to
the original
context.
(5-6) The
writing
(0-8) Student
does not
adequately
communicate,
organize and/or
synthesize
information
from sources
and/or does not
advance
knowledge in
the discipline.
20/20
Student quotes,
paraphrases and
cites
information but
may have many
errors or use
the information
out of context.
(0-4) The
writing is
10/10
Graduate Writing Rubric
Organization
smoothly and
logically from a
well-defined
thesis. There is
a coherence in
each sentence
and paragraph
that relates
clearly to the
controlling idea
using
appropriate
examples. The
flow of
information
demonstrates
logical
reasoning
without jumps
or shifts. The
writing contains
a thorough
introduction,
body sections,
conclusion, and
smooth
transitions.
Revised 5/3/2016, Dr. Jennifer Douglas
organized
logically and
flows well.
Paragraphs are
organized to fit
the type of
essay being
written. The
writing
discusses each
controlling idea
using
appropriate
examples. The
flow of
information
demonstrates
logical
reasoning with
minor jumps or
shifts. The
writing contains
an appropriate
introduction,
body sections,
conclusion, and
transitions.
demonstrates
rudimentary
organization and
logical
structure, but
ideas may be
more fully
developed and
supported by
more
appropriate
evidence.
Paragraphs are
somewhat
organized to fit
the type of
essay being
written. The
writing
discusses the
controlling idea
using prescribed
resources or
examples. The
writing contains
a basic
introduction and
body sections,
but may be
missing a
conclusion.
There may be
repetition of
thought or
ideas. The
coherence at
noticeably
lacking in
organization.
Paragraphs are
somewhat
organized, at
least by shape,
to fit the type of
essay being
written.
However, the
writing lacks
discussion of the
proposed
controlling idea.
There may be
repetition of
thought or
ideas.
The writing
contains some
elements of the
introduction and
body sections,
but may be
missing a
conclusion.
Transitions are
not evident.
Graduate Writing Rubric
Style
(9-10) The
writing engages
the reader
through an
original prose
style
appropriate to
the subject.
Language is
precise and uses
terminology
appropriate to
the discipline.
All sentences
are solid and
reflect mature
writing. Variety
in sentence
structure
contributes to
the logical flow
and enhances
readability.
Active voice and
passive voice
are used
appropriately for
the subject
matter.
(9-10) The
writing is free of
proofreading
Revised 5/3/2016, Dr. Jennifer Douglas
(7-8) The
writing keeps
the reader’s
attention
through a
carefully crafted
prose style.
Language
chosen is
appropriate to
the discipline,
but may have
minor errors in
using
terminology.
Sentences are
strong in
thought
construct.
Variety in
sentence
structure
contributes to
the logical flow.
Active voice and
passive voice
are typically
used
appropriately for
the subject
matter.
(7-8) The
writing may
exhibit a few
times is choppy
or flat.
(5-6) The
writing is clear
but could be
expressed in a
terminology
more
appropriate to
the subject.
Sentences are
sometimes
nonstandard or
included
fragments/runons. There is
limited use of
sentence variety
for logical flow.
Active voice and
passive voice
are used
inconsistently.
(5-6) The
writing could
benefit from
(0-4) The
writing lacks
clarity and is
sometimes
confusing. The
language
chosen is not
appropriate to
the subject nor
the assignment.
Sentences are
often
nonstandard
and included
fragments and
run-ons. There
is no evidence
of sentence
variety used for
logical flow.
Active voice and
passive voice
are used
inconsistently.
10/10
(0-4) The
writing exhibits
substantial
10/10
Graduate Writing Rubric
Grammar and
Mechanics
Formatting
errors. The
writing contains
sentences that
are always
complete and
grammatically
correct, and free
of confusion and
ambiguity.
(9-10) Student
provides a highcaliber, correctly
formatted
assignment in
the assigned
citation style. All
citations in the
text and in the
references are
accurately cited
in the
appropriate
style.
Revised 5/3/2016, Dr. Jennifer Douglas
minor errors in
proofreading,
but they do not
impair the flow
of the reading.
The writing
contains
sentences that
are complete or
which imply
unstated
connections
and/or
conclusions.
(7-8)
Assignment
presents an
above-average
use of
formatting skills
with few errors
in citation style.
Most citations in
the text and in
the references
are accurately
cited in the
appropriate
style.
additional
proofreading, as
some errors
impede the flow
of the reading.
The writing
contains some
grammatical
errors easily
corrected.
Additional
proofreading
would help
eliminate errors.
(5-6)
Appearance of
final assignment
demonstrates
the student’s
limited ability to
use appropriate
citation style
formatting.
Some citations
in the text and
in the
references are
accurately cited
in the
appropriate
style.
errors in
proofreading.
The writing is
confusing and
ambiguous
owing to
substantial
errors of
grammar and
syntax. There is
no evidence of
proofreading,
editing, or
rewriting.
(0-4)
Appearance of
the final
assignment is
distracting. The
number of
citation style
formatting
errors impedes
easy reading.
Few citations in
the text and in
the references
are accurately
cited in the
appropriate
style.
10/10
INTRODUCTION
Lesson Two introduced leadership, some of the qualities that are generally associated with
successful leadership, and some of the types of power that leaders wield. Lesson Three will
introduce three of the most prominent ethical theories in the philosophical debate today and
apply a famous ethical problem for analysis.
As a helpful refresher, Lesson One supra established that ethics encompass the behaviors and
perspectives that maximize morality—that is to say, those behaviors and perspectives which
have the most positive impact on well-being for those involved. Although seems to be fairly
straight-forward, one thing you should be beginning to notice is that insofar as philosophy on
right and wrong or good and bad is concerned, nothing is as simple as it may at first seem.
Understanding that the goal of ethics is to maximize well-being, questions immediately arise as
to the best ways to maximize well-being. When sacrifices must be made, whose well-being
matters most, and why? These are difficult questions, and through rigorous philosophical
inquiry, some of the greatest thinkers on the subject have reduced their perspectives to some
basic ethical theories upon which most points of view can at some level be mapped. In this
lesson, we will discuss three of the most well-established of these theories.
Egoism
Egoism is the idea that the optimal response to any moral quandary is that which maximizes
well-being for the person responding. Egoism, ergo, is premised on the basis of self-interest, and
in its purest form, it argues that those actions which are most in furtherance of a person’s selfinterest are inherently the best choices.
Immediately we can notice an obvious selfish bias to the concept of pure egoism. In its
unqualified form, egoism would embrace human qualities like greed, and assert that one’s own
gains are the only variables that matter within the context of personal ethics. However, it is only
fair to note that some philosophers advocate a modified version of egoism called enlightened
egoism. The basic premise of enlightened egoism is that individuals serve their own self-interest
when they act in ways that serve the interests of others. Put another way, the motivation is still
selfish (one’s own self-interest), but by helping others it is purported that mutual cooperation
will ultimately benefit the actor more than if he or she had pursued a line of behavior consistent
with pure greed and selfishness (The Basics of Philosophy, n.d.-b).
As one simple example, if it is agreed that self-preservation is the ultimate self-interest, then
under egoist theory there would perhaps be no circumstances under which the individual should
be persuaded to sacrifice his or her own life for the benefit of others.
One of the most famous proponents of egoism was Adam Smith, the father of modern-day
capitalism. Capitalism itself is primarily based on the principle that if players in an economic
environment act in a way that promotes their own individual self-interests, the resulting
competition will force those players to maximize efficiency and productivity, players and
consumers will benefit as a result. This is also the foundation for the Reagan administration’s
philosophy of trickle-down economics, which suggested that if the government made it easier for
the private sector to do business (cut regulations, lower taxes, etc.), everyone would ultimately
benefit from the prosperity, businesses included (Welch, 2006).
Utilitarianism
A second ethical theory is that of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism contrasts with egoism in that it
asserts that the most ethical conduct is measured by taking a simple inventory of well-being
accomplished (or, alternatively, suffering avoided) for all those involved, without any special
consideration for the individual actor. In this sense, utilitarianism is perhaps the most
mathematically sound basis for ethical conduct. Under utilitarianism, in order to maximize
morality, all one need do is measure the total amount of well-being produced (or suffering
relieved) for all parties involved in each alternative option, and then choose the option with the
best net yield. As a result of this simple logic, utilitarianism can be starkly distinguished from
egoism in that under utilitarianism the most ethical behavior may be one in which the actor
enjoys no well-being whatsoever. In fact, the most ethical behavior may be one which brings
suffering (or a decrease in well-being) to the actor. If other people involved would derive more
benefit than the harm attributed, then such behaviors are preferable under a utilitarian theory
(The Basics of Philosophy, n.d.-c).
In the example of self-sacrifice, utilitarianism would support the general idea of sacrificing one’s
own life so long as such an act serves to save at least two other lives. This example, of course,
assumes all other things to be equal. It is worth noting that a distinction is made in utilitarian
theory between quantitative well-being and qualitative well-being. In other words, utilitarian
theory permits an argument that all lives are not equally valuable.
Jeremy Bentham, a 18th-century English jurist, and philosopher were one of the biggest
advocates of utilitarianism. Bentham adamantly opposed the death penalty, slavery, physical
punishment, and the subjugation of basic freedoms and rights (he also advocated then-extreme
views like decriminalization of homosexuality). All such positions were based on the idea that
offenses in these areas violated the utilitarian premise of maximizing well-being for all
stakeholders.
Deontology
Deontology is yet another ethical theory. The two biggest proponents of deontology, Immanuel
Kant, and W.D. Ross, shared different perspectives on this problem of duty. Kant suggested that
reasoning should be the basis of establishing duty. This, of course, precariously presupposes that
reasoning would lead to universal conclusions, notwithstanding culture, religion, etc. Ross, on
the other hand, believed that “common sense intuition” is that which should inform duty.
Although it can be argued that this notion is about as ambiguous as it gets, Ross at least provided
some of his own “common sense” as an objective premise for this point of view. For example,
according to Ross, not causing harm to others was to be the highest priority, followed by lesser
duties such as fidelity, justice, beneficence, etc. Sufficeth to say that deontology leaves the
individual awash in sometimes-irreconcilable subjective interpretations of “duty”.
The Trolley Problem
In order to help illustrate the differences between these theories, we can apply a famous
hypothetical ethics quandary introduced by Philippa Foot in the mid-20th century. The quandary
was coined “The Trolley Problem” and is set up as follows:
Barreling down a track is a trolley, and tied to the track ahead of the trolley are five individuals
who will be killed by the trolley unless something is done. You (the observer) had nothing to do
with the circumstances in which these five people are currently situated, but you are standing
next to a lever that would switch the track and divert the trolley away from the five people,
effectively rescuing them from certain death. However, you observe that there is one individual
standing on the alternate track to which the trolley would be diverted if you pull the lever, and
this individual would be killed were you to do so. The problem is to deliberate as to the most
ethical conduct here: let the five people die, or pull the lever and kill the one on the alternate
track? (Philosopher’s Toolkit, n.d.).
This problem was originally created to emphasize the distinction between taking action and
omitting action. Is there an ethical difference between permitting the death of five people that
you could easily save, and orchestrating the death of one person who was not otherwise in
peril? Feel free to conduct this thought experiment in your own head and analyze the
implications (What would you choose? And more importantly, why?). However, for the purposes
of our discussion, we can also apply the three ethical theories we’ve discussed in this lesson to
the problem, in order to evaluate differences in consequences.
• EGOISM
• UTILITARIANISM
• DEONTOLOGY
In an egoist paradigm, the question at hand would be: which of the two choices would bring
about better well-being for the observer? If the observer had a personal attachment to any of the
individuals in peril in the scenario, then the decision might be determined by one’s prerogative to
save those people that are of greatest personal value to the observer. For example, if the one
person on the alternate track is the observer’s mother, then this might persuade a choice not to
pull the lever. However, absent such facts, if all those individuals involved were complete
strangers to the observer, then there might not be a strong investment in the decision either way.
Alternatively, though, one might also consider the weight of accountability on the observer
afterward (e.g. how guilty would the observer feel about his or her decision?), and as a result,
this might compel more thorough consideration.
Conclusion
In this lesson, we discussed three of the most prominent ethical theories, as well as their
application to The Trolley Problem in order to assess relative consequences. In Lesson Four, we
will discuss some seminal theories on leadership efficacy, and the difference between
transactional and transformational leadership.

Calculate your order
Pages (275 words)
Standard price: $0.00
Client Reviews
4.9
Sitejabber
4.6
Trustpilot
4.8
Our Guarantees
100% Confidentiality
Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.
Original Writing
We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.
Timely Delivery
No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.
Money Back
If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

Calculate the price of your order

You will get a personal manager and a discount.
We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
Total price:
$0.00
Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.
Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, how can I help?