I find a similar strangeness with the argument by James MacGregor Burns that Hitler was not a leader. [Burns called him a "mis-leader."] Trying to adjust the boundaries of leadership so monsters like Hitler and Stalin are not included does no harm to them, who are roasting in hell, and much damage to the study of leadership. Leadership is more of a verb than a noun and it helps to understand its dysfunctional and evil versions as well as its great practitioners.
Whether examining ethics or leadership, let's avoid cooking the books.
3 comments:
The term I hear is judo philosophy, taking the strongest argument against your position and using to to make your case. I most hear it when arguing for fair wages or manditory PTO or some such benefit, that it is actually good business due to x, y and z.
I doubt such claims would hold up to scrutiny, but I suppose the point isn't to convince as much to raise doubt about the opponents strongest case, thererby making your ethical point relatively stronger.
Yes, Michael. Yes! Yes! Yes!
Daniel,
I find the use of the "good business" argument to be dangerous. As ethicist Michael Josephson once noted, the "good business is good ethics" argument can be easily switched to "good business is good ethics."
Wally,
Many thanks!
Michael
Post a Comment