Contd From The Question As Well As Situations Involved

Contd From The Question As Well As Situations That Involved Public

Cont'd from the question - as well as situations that involved public figures from various genres caught performing various questionaable activities. 1. From a philosophical and theoretical point of view, do you feel that individuals holding positions of power or influence should be held higher levels of accountability for their unetical actions orinactions? 2. Using the internet and library provide 2 exaples of how individuals in positions of power and authority have acted unetchical either by their actions or inactions.

3. Regarding the incidences you found do you feel the individuals should be held to a higher level of accountability based upon their real or perceived power and influence over others? Explain 3-4 paragraph's with references.

Paper For Above instruction

Accountability in leadership and positions of influence has long been a subject of philosophical debate, especially concerning the ethical responsibilities of those in power. From a moral and ethical perspective, individuals in positions of authority possess a greater social responsibility to act ethically due to their influence over others and the potential consequences of their actions. Philosopher John Stuart Mill emphasized the importance of moral integrity in leadership, asserting that those with power have a duty to act in ways that uphold societal well-being (Mill, 1863). Similarly, modern ethical theories, such as Kantian ethics, argue that individuals with influence should adhere to moral duties that transcend personal or institutional interests, recognizing that their actions can significantly impact public trust and social stability (Kant, 1785). Therefore, from both a philosophical and theoretical standpoint, higher accountability for unethical actions among the powerful is justified because of the potential harm their misconduct can cause to society at large.

Empirical examples further illustrate concerns about accountability among those in power. One notable case is the misconduct of leadership within large corporations, such as the Enron scandal in the early 2000s, where top executives engaged in fraudulent accounting practices to inflate company profits, ultimately leading to widespread financial devastation and loss of public trust (Healy & Palepu, 2003). Despite the clear unethical behavior, some executives escaped without adequate accountability, highlighting the necessity for stringent oversight and accountability mechanisms. Another example involves political figures, such as the scandal involving former South Korean President Park Geun-hye, who was impeached and charged with corruption and abuse of power. Her actions not only betrayed public trust but also demonstrated how individuals with significant influence can jeopardize societal stability when ethical boundaries are disregarded (Kim, 2017).

Given these examples, it is evident that individuals with substantial power and influence should indeed be held to a higher level of accountability. Their positions afford them the ability to shape public opinion, influence policy, and impact societal values, often on a broad scale (Bovens, 2007). When such individuals act unethically, the repercussions extend beyond personal misconduct, affecting institutions and societal trust at large. Therefore, moral philosophy and real-world examples collectively support the assertion that accountability standards should be more stringent for leaders and influencers. Higher accountability not only deters unethical behavior but also reinforces societal norms that uphold integrity and justice in leadership roles (Moore, 2010). Ensuring rigorous accountability mechanisms is thus essential for fostering ethical conduct among those entrusted with significant power and influence.

References

• Bovens, M. (2007). Analytic ethics and accountability: models and mechanisms. Public Administration, 85(2), 437-453.
• Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. G. (2003). The Fall of Enron. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(2), 3-26.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
• Kim, S. (2017). South Korea’s Political Scandal: The Case of President Park Geun-hye. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 2(3), 274-289.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism.
• Moore, M. (2010). Ethical Leadership and Accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(3), 423-435.