Discourse in Moral Leadership

Crafting Public Morality through Discourse

Some questions to consider as you think about moral leadership

Home

Daily Schedule

Assignments

Instructor

Online Material

Study Aids

Orientation

Course Policies

Some Terminological Distinctions

There are several terms that we use as rough equivalents when discussing morality: ethical, moral, virtuous, and legal. But these terms have some subtle differences. That we equate them tells us something about the distinctions that we fail to make in how we understand morality today.

Ethical. This term has its roots in the Greek term ethos, meaning character. Questions of ethics edge toward the character of the people involved. They stress the way in which our values and behavior define us as people.
Moral. This term has its roots in the Latin term mor, meaning custom. This term stresses the way in which morals are linked to standards developed by our culture. If ethical reminds us that we define our character through our behavior, moral reminds us that the judgement of our character is made against the background of the values that we develop culturally.
Virtue. Also a Latin term deriving from vir or pertaining to males. In the era of English patriarchy, virtue became associated with excellence or goodness. The term has some echos of the medieval notion of knights as those who refine their excellences.
Legal. With the term "legal" we cross a line. Where notions of ethics, morality and virtue define without notions of sanctions, legality establishes formal sanction for the behavior. Thus, legality tends to cross the line from the public sphere into the governmental sphere. Although we often do not make this distinction, it does surface. We know for example that there is a difference between Affirmative Action and a condemnation of racism, or campaign finance laws proscribing behavior is different from our expectations of candidates in a democracy.

We are interested in discourse through which we craft public morality.

We also need to differentiate between discourse from the public sphere and discourse from the governmental sphere. The former addresses more abstact issues of right, wrong, values, and morality; the latter is shaped by the need to design legal provisions. Consider for example the following comparisons:

Public Sphere topics	Governmental Sphere issues
Racism in our society	Affirmative Action
Responsibility of the younger for the well-being of the elderly	Social Security
Responsibility of the society for the poor	Tax policy; welfare
Nature of democracy; citizenship	Campaign finance laws; term limits
Place of violence in our relationships with others	criminal law targeting violent crime

Elected leaders can address moral issues, but moral leaders are not always elected. And non-governmental leaders can engage in politics. The differences relate not to where a leader's authority lies but in whether they choose to engage topics as moral or as government issues.

Crafting Public Morality through Discourse

Public morality, then, is what we believe in as a community. Our values, judgements about our behavior, commitments that we believe in enacting, the direction that we are willing to pursue. Public morality is what defines our bonds as a community.
Public morality is crafted through public talk. When we talk about morality we teach, reinforce or alter our public morality.
Public moral discourse follows two different styles:

Abstract. Often we overtly address questions of public morality. We talk about our public commitments. We celebrate what makes us great as a community. We urge people to commit to certain precepts. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech is an example of this.
Concrete. At other times, we are talking about some event or some person, but talk about them in such a way that we judge: we judge their behavior or praise or condemn their character. Doing so not only passes our judgement, it also teaches, reinforces, or alters the morality behind the judgements we are making. Eulogies are examples of this type of discourse. Bill Clinton condemning the church burnings in the South are another example.

Moral Leadership

Moral talk does not require a leader, it exists throughout the fabric of our society. Any time we share judgements with others we are doing moral work.
But when someone we recognize as a moral leader advises us, his/her voice has greater force.
Moral leaders are not elected. They assume to speak as advisers on public morality. If we believe that they make sense, we follow them, then they become recognized leaders. Martin Luther King was not anointed by anyone as a moral leader. At the time, he was even considered immoral by many., But he spoke to our moral sense and today we honor him as an important moral leader.