University of Idaho
Center for ETHICS
500 Memorial Gym
Moscow, ID 83844-2429
Phone (208) 885-2103
Fax (208) 885-2108
|
Multiple Choice Questions - Lesson 4
|
|
Picture of Dali Lama was released to public domain by
source web site
http://www.buddhismus.at/ released the rights
1. According to the Dalai Lama, the purpose of life is happiness. Our
purpose as coaches is to create an opportunity for the players in our
charge to develop joy and happiness from participating on our team,
through the maximization of their individual and collective abilities.
To reach this end we must:
1.a. Create an
environment in which everyone is comfortable. It is true that any
leader wants an environment where everyone is comfortable.
However, it is also true that it is next to impossible to establish such
an environment for I will never know what it is that makes you
comfortable and second what makes you comfortable might be wholly
unhealthy and not good for the group.
Return to Question 1 and try again.
|
Pictures courtesy of Bruce Matthews |
1b. Offer equal
opportunity for participation to all who are on our team. Fairness
is a relative term in that each player earns their opportunity through
their investment in the activity, not only in their motor ability but in
their focus on the team. Often, it is thought that coaches should offer
equal opportunity...however, there is also as Coach Wooden said
responsibility for each player to earn their opportunity through their
dedication to that activity. There is a better answer for this
question.
Return to Question 1 and try again.
|
|
|
1c. Look for the positive in
all that we do with our teams. It is true that being positive directly
affects the environment and attitude of the players. However, it is
also true that we don't want to continually look at the world through
rose colored glasses. Good leaders, servant leaders, understand the
importance of fair, and critical evaluation of events and processes of
the groups. Sometimes the negative is importance to honestly evaluate
the situation. This is not the best answer for this question.
Return to Question 1 and try again.
|
1d. Systematically
train the attitude and outlook of our players. Training sometimes is not
the best solution, perhaps educating the attitude and outlook of our
players would be a better verb here - not to question the Dalai Lama.
However, joy and happiness is infectious, but it is also learned from
the environment and from the coaches. The reverse is also true.
Negative attitudes and negative outlooks can fester and malign any
organization or group. We are trained by our environments and our role
models. In fact, we are even trained from the womb to be positive and
upbeat. Thus, if we want a positive environment; there must be a
positive perspective enacted by the coach for the players. This is the
best answer for this question. Please read the answers to all of
Question 1 and
then proceed to question 2.
|
|
2. Coach Wooden tells us that great teams have a sense
of family and uncommon strength and resiliency. This is created through
the demonstration of love by all. Love must be considered here in the
sense of 2a.
Admiration for the abilities of one another. It is true that
the great teams have a sense of family and most of them admire each
other's abilities. And it is true that selfless love should be
self-less. However, love in the sense that Wooden speaks is more
than admiring abilities. Love in this sense is about serving
others and actually doing for others rather than admiring them.
We recommend that you reread the story about
Wooden, and especially the Hunter reading on the power of love.
Return
to question 2 and try again.
. |
|
|
2b. Respect for the effort of all.
It is true that we should have respect for the effort of all, unless and
except if that effort is less than it should be. That is, if my effort
is half hearted, then my effort should be not respected. It is that age
old question of: Should we respect all people? Most people say, yes?
But what if that individual is a pedophile? Or what if that person is a
murderer of genocide magnitude? Should we respect Hitler? Should we
respect
Jeffrey Dahmer?
or
Ted Bundy? The answer is no. Responsibility of action brings about
respect by our peers. As a human being, we have a responsibility to be
a moral individual. And, we do have an obligation to seek justice in a
fair, democratic system. We do have an obligation to respect the
dignity of mankind. Thus, this answer is not the best,
please return to Question 2. |
2c. Loyalty to the team
It is true that good teams have a chemistry in which members are
loyal to the team, the coach, the school, and the community.
However, loyalty in an of itself is a questionable value. Loyalty
must be tied to an honorable mission that is tied to love, decency,
respect, and responsibility.
Loyalty becomes problematic when it sits as the most important value
in any society. Numerous historical figures had seconds in command
that were loyal to the cause, but the cause itself was evil and
immeasurable harm was done.
The issue of loyalty is always an ethical issue especially in
organizations that function on purpose through loyalty. In the
military, an officer is to follow an order.
Before My Lai, it was assumed that the order was always to be
followed. However, the debacle at My Lai changed the perspective.
Click here for the story of
My
Lai. All officers today are educated to follow an order unless
it is unethical or illegal. This places a great deal of
responsibility on the military to ensure that their officers understand
the difference between a legal and illegal order as well as an ethical
or unethical order. Officers are educated in ethics and moral
reasoning. This sort of educational program has been in effect for
all officers of the military and has been argued to become education for
the enlisted man as well.
Reconsider your answer, and
return to question 2 to find
the better answer.
|
|
|
2d. Giving to and serving each
other. Congratulations. This is the correct answer. Please read all
the choices for question 2 and then
proceed to question 3. |
3.
According to James Hunter, the meaning of love as it applies to leadership
is:
3a. To identify and
serve the needs of others. Hunter's point here as a leader, a servant
leader, is to "wash the feet" of his people. To see himself as one an
underrowers, who is able to bring about the best in people who serve an
honorable cause. As Hunter said, ... the Greeks used the noun
agape, and the corresponding verb agapao to describe a
more unconditional love rooted in behavior toward others without regard to
their due. It is the love of deliberate choice....it is a love of
behavior and choice, not a love of feeling (pp. 96-97)
Hunter argued that,
"The same principle of commitment is true in leadership. The
character traits, behaviors, we have been discussing today are not so
difficult with the people we like. Many evil men and women have
been kind and outgoing with the people they liked. But our true
character as the leader is revealed when we have to extend ourselves for
the tough ones, when we are put in the crucible and have to love people
we don't particularly like. Then we find out about how committed
we are. Then we find out what kind of leader we've really got....(
p. 123).
...leadership is built upon authority or influence, which is built
upon service and sacrifice, which is built upon love. When you
lead with authority, you will, by definition, be called upon to extend
yourself, love, serve, and even sacrifice for others.
Again, love is not about how you feel toward others but how
you behave toward others."
You chose the best answer for number 3, but please refer the other three
answers to gain a greater understanding of this virtue.
Continue on
to question 4. |
|
|
3b. To identify and
satisfy the wants and desires of the group -
This answer is a slippery
slope and a mine field. If a leader is directed toward what the group
wants, he is not a leader in the truest sense of the servant leader.
Why? Because the wants and desires of the group may be moral, immoral,
or amoral. Even if the wants and desires of the group are moral, the
problem of attending to the wants and desires misses of the point of
honorable missions. Good leadership, servant leadership, is not
directed toward wants and desires of the group but toward an honorable
mission that helps others. It is not selfishly directed toward the
group, but toward service to society. What is good about this
organization? What good does it do for others? How can we distribute
this good, fairly to all people. Honorable leadership is focused on the
development of moral groups that can be so distributed.In football
teams, as in all groups, sometimes we get lost in trying to keep
everyone happy. What is it that the group wants? If we can
answer that, and supply it - the group will be happy.
Unfortunately, this sort of slippery thinking can take us places where
we really don't want to go. There are numerous examples of
individuals that selfishly focused so much that the group suffers as
well as the individual.
Return to question 3 and try
again.
|
3c. To build a sense
of community for the group.
Any organization that hopes to have an enduring
history must have a sense of community. And great leaders understand
the importance of community.
Many great works have been written on this subject, but
one of our favorites is the work of
Stanley
Hauerwas who argues for the importance of a moral community that
follows a specific and enduring set of virtues.
However important that this is in each and every
honorable community, Hunter's purpose was not to argue for community but for
the role of the leader and his relationship to the group.
Hunter said, " ...leadership is built upon
authority or influence, which is built upon service and sacrifice, which is
built upon love. When you lead with authority, you will, by
definition, be called upon to extend yourself, love, serve, and even
sacrifice for others.
Again, love is not about how you feel toward others but how
you behave toward others...."
|
|
|
3d. To create a
vision for the group. Good leaders have the ability to inspire and
to lead. Even better leaders have a mission and a vision for their
group. And the honorable, great leaders have a clear sense of leading
others to a vision of goodness and importance. However, Hunter's point
is that love is not necessarily a part of "creating a vision". Rather
his argument was that:
leadership is built upon authority or influence, which is built upon
service and sacrifice, which is built upon love. When you lead with
authority, you will, by definition, be called upon to extend yourself,
love, serve, and even sacrifice for others.
Again, love is not about how you feel toward others but how you behave
toward others.
...love - the verb--could be defined as the act or acts of extending
yourself for others by identifying and meeting their legitimate needs."
(p. 125).
Return to question 3
and try again for a better answer.
|
4. Coach Wooden met the needs
of his players by:
4a. Arranging for
them to play in big tournaments - Success is always what coaches want for
their players. What was the three things that Bear Bryant said about
success, "You got to win." And we must remember that winning is the
point of playing a game and keeping points. However, if winning is the
only point - if that's the mission then its not about servant leadership and
its probably not about character - Wooden knew that winning was important
and playing in tournaments was a positive, but that's not what he thought
was the needs of his players.
Return to question 4 and try again
|
|
|
4b. Finding first class
transportation for them to the games
Hopefully, no one answers this question with this
answer. For if you have, you have missed the whole point of the Wooden
reading. If you read Wooden in his many books, you will know that this
value and this perspective would be the last of what he thought was
important for his players.
Return to question 4 and try again...maybe you need to reread Wooden and
start again :-)
|
4c. Ensuring that
all in the ‘family’ were treated fairly and with compassion.
Jim Power's story with our embellishments on the
importance of Wooden's heroic action is one of the highlights of this
lesson.
It would be very, very difficult for most of us to
turn down the offer of a large tournament, based on one individual not being
wanted. Maybe through the lens of historical revision, we can easily
see that all of us should be like John Wooden.
The reality is, we probably wouldn't.
This is the correct answer for question 4, but please
read all of the answers for this question before you go to
question 5.
|
|
|
4d. Coaching them
to the final game against Louisville. Of course, Louisville had great
teams also during the time that Wooden coached. However, Wooden's
goal was never about one team. In fact, it was said that Wooden
never scouted other teams. He prepared his teams for whatever
possibility might occur under whatever situations. Thus it was
never about one team.
It is hard to imagine a coach not scouting teams. However,
Wooden believed in preparation and the offensive never taking the
offensive and using precious time worrying about an opponent.
If you choose this question, you need to return to the readings and
read again
Reading 1.
Return to
question 4 and try again. |
5. Values
are different from virtues. Virtues are:
5a. Religious
- Hunter breaks down values and virtues and argues that values are
changeable and relative by degree and person. Religious virtues have
been an enduring part of our western tradition as noted through Mosaic Law,
Hebraic law, Judaism, and Christianity. However, religious virtues may
be more than virtue and may follow an individual spiritual path that is not
tied into to reponsibilities to another. Moral virtue is ALWAYS about
the motives, actions, and intentions directed toward others. I could
be seeking a religiously virtuous life that is totally withdrawn from
society. I could be seeking a religiously virtuous life that is
self deprecatory, i.e., - such as self denial and mortification -
asceticism. Click
here for more information on acesticism. Thus this system of
religious virtue is not enduring, and in fact, very few religious orders
still practice ascetism. You might have seen the movie or read the
book, DaVinci's Code, in which the arch villian Silas practices
mortification. He wears a spiked cilice around his thigh which cuts into the
skin and muscle, and his soul sang for he was in the service of the Lord.
Pain is good! Rather bizarre behavior. My point here is that
religious virtues may be permanent and enduring and they may not.
Return to
question 5 and try again.
|
|
|
5b. Traditional -
Traditional values are really rather relative for what is meant by
traditional values... In our case, in the US, one could argue that
traditional values are the "American" way - unfortunately, this rather
flimsy discussion of values really doesn't help us understand the importance
of virtues and their place in our lives. Traditional values in Omaha,
Nebraska, are different than traditional values in Moscow, Idaho.
It is true that often in the US traditional values
are often represented as "the values and virtues" of the US. We
have to be careful here to know that traditional is a rather weak
statement - we must be clear that if we use the word traditional we must
think of traditional in relation to our 4000 year history of virtues and
values.
Virtues are enduring and actually come to us from our
4000 years of Western tradition. Our Western tradition has been
formulated through the great works of the Greeks, (Socrates, Plato,
Aristotle) the Hebrews (Moses),
Christianity (St. Paul,
St.
Aquinas, St.
Augustine), John
Locke,
Rousseau,
Montesquieu,
plus many, many more. These individuals through their literature give
us a rather clear argument as to why virtues - are enduring, permanent, and
never situational. Virtues are what we should all ascribe to
accomplish. These virtues are based on enduring values - the basic
gist of this can be found in some general perspectives about the purpose of
trying to obtain a virtuous life. For example, St. Aquinas argued that
human beings should attempt: (i) to achieve intelligible goods in one's own
life and the lives of other human beings and their environment, and (ii) to
be of good character and live a life that as a whole will have been a
reasonable response to such opportunities.
Traditional is probably not the best answer in this
case. Please return to
Return to
question 5 |
5c. Permanent - You
are correct. Virtues are enduring and actually come to us from our
4000 years of Western tradition. Our Western tradition has been
formulated through the great works of the Greeks, (Socrates, Plato,
Aristotle) the Hebrews (Moses),
Christianity (St. Paul,
St.
Aquinas, St.
Augustine), John
Locke,
Rousseau,
Montesquieu,
plus many, many more. These individuals through their literature give
us a rather clear argument as to why virtues - are enduring, permanent, and
never situational. Virtues are what we should all ascribe to
accomplish. These virtues are based on enduring values - the basic
gist of this can be found in some general perspectives about the purpose of
trying to obtain a virtuous life. For example, St. Aquinas argued that
human beings should attempt: (i) to achieve intelligible goods in one's own
life and the lives of other human beings and their environment, and (ii) to
be of good character and live a life that as a whole will have been a
reasonable response to such opportunities.
Please read all of question five before
returning to Lesson 4 for the assessment.
|
|
|
5d. Situational
It is often argued that in a multi-cultural world there really isn't a
universal standard. It is also often argued that ethics is a slippery
slope study in which more questions are raised. Maybe and maybe not.
I am reminded of a story told by
Tom Morris
who wrote
If Aristotle Ran General Motors. Dr. Morris now is a business
speaker on ethics and is often on public radio speaking about the importance
of ethics. He was once interviewed and posed this question, "Suppose
you are in a grocery store and you are in the produce section. Is it
unethical to taste a grape before purchase?" It seems that the radio
stationed had surveyed a group of individuals at actual grocery stores and
most of them thought that it was ethical to taste the grapes because
actually management wants individuals to taste the grapes... and it is only
one grape being tasted." Morris listened to the response and said, "Of
course, the argument sounds functional. But we must be very careful
with individuals who make strong and functional arguments. In fact, we
must be very careful of smart people - they can make an argument that most
of us will be easily convinced to follow along. The grape tasting
question should be placed in perspective of universal standard - if it okay
to taste one grape, why not as you walk down the mayonnaise row, just twist
off the lids and stick a finger in each one? The one grape argument is
flawed..." Morris goes on to argue that even though it's one little
grape, it still is a form of stealing. He said that he asked his wife
and told her the survey response, she said, "Honey, don't worry about it.
Those grapes aren't washed. They will all get the just rewards of
stealing." In reality, there are universal standards of
right and wrong. We may not like the fact that these standards
exist...but they do and we as a people need such standards.
Return to
question 5
|
|