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