Vocation of the Business Leader: What is “servant leadership” and how is this kind of

leadership based on the dignity of the human person? Explain and exemplify: good
goods, good work, good wealth. After having read the document, what is your reflection
about the proverbial “third mason”, particularly about the claim that the only purpose
of an organization is to maximize shareholder wealth?
 The servant leader remembers that they are both a leader to the people they lead –
either in a business or in any general group – and a member (servant) of the group.
This means that the leader is never totally above their co-members or supremely the
say-all-be-all in the group or business. The servant leader remembers that they are
also part of the group, and that being a leader means they are ‘second to their other
members’.
o This means that they have a duty toward their other members – either to help
them improve or respect how they are, and to see them as themselves, as
human persons and not as a tool in the process of the business.
o The business leader remembers that their members are human persons that
have their own lives and work with the business leader and not for them.
 Being a servant leader reminds the business leader that they are both a servant and a
leader – a servant before being a leader – because they serve and are leaders for their
members/the people they work with such that they remember that they are not above
anyone else.
o Human dignity reminds us that every human person is an end in themselves
and never a means to an end.
 The servant leader then is compelled to respect this, and to help others
grow as an end in themselves – the very point of good work is for the
work to help the worker grow and develop their skills both for the
work and for themselves.
 The three goods in business is for the business leader to watch over the
positive growth of the business – to ensure that what happens in the
business is for the good of the workers, good for the business
goal/business itself, and good for all stakeholders and those
affected/associated with the business.
 Good goods are the business’ personification of what it values
– the ‘physical’ manifestation of the goals and what it is the
business leader and what the workers value and work for
together.
 Good work is the blood or the energy that drives the business to
continue – without good and efficient work, the business would
not be able to function well and all products, both internal and
external in the business, will be substandard.
o Internal products are the ‘products’ inherent in the
workers and the business leader, and even the consumer
if the work/product they receive is good.
o External products are, in general, good goods.
  Good wealth is the extrinsic ‘reward’ the business receives and
also gives – it is both the stimulus and response in the organism
which is the business.
o It is the stimulus in the sense that the business should be
able to adapt, continue, or change depending on what
has happened to the [good] wealth/profit of the
business.
o It is a response in how the business has been; it is the
reference as to how the business has been performing.
 The VMV is the representation of the three goods of business – good goods as the
mission; good work as the value; and good wealth as the vision. It is the constant
development and growth towards these three that shows how the three goods are
attained, strived for, and developed.
o Good goods is presented as the mission because what is the goal of a business
other than to be able to present itself and deliver itself and what it strives for
than through its goods.
 What marks a business is usually the products it sells – in short, its
goods.
 Having and producing good products such that they are able to achieve
what the business leader initially intended for the product to do, and it
is able to serve and benefit others and users is what represents a good
goods.
o Good work as values of the business represents how the work is generally
conducted, how the workers perform and carry themselves in the workplace
and how they are able to carry the name of their business and even of their
business leader. A good values and workplace environment will essentially
translate to good work ethics and performance.
 If the business has good values that is agreeable to all, workers and
everyone involved will also be inclined to work well and in the process
improve – motivation to work usually means an improved rate of
performance (Riggio, 2009; Menguito, 2014) pak.
o Good wealth is seen as the vision for the business in rather loose terms –
meaning it is not as the end-all-be-all goal of the business. Good wealth is the
vision in the sense that this is what the business strives for: wealth in every
sense and for everyone involved in the business.
 A successful business is able to become and stay wealthy in every
sense, and it should be able to provide and support its stakeholders as
well.
 Inherently, good wealth is the ability of the business to stay alive and
keep itself and those who keep it alive, alive as well. It is the vision of
the business because it should be able to stay alive.
o The three goods can very loosely be interchanged with each other, as the
VMV works in a way that each aspect is related to each other, however I
understand and say that they are these because what each good strives for
suites where it is.
 The proverbial third mason, I think, is someone who has ‘found their place in the
world’, this is a person who had found what they love doing, they’re good at what
they’re doing, and is able to live doing what they love. This person who has found
their purpose – someone who has found their calling versus a chore or career. This
person, who is fuelled by their passion and love, is not driven by the want for wealth
in continuing to work; rather, they are fuelled and motivated to continue their work
because they sincerely enjoy it and earning is as a sort of secondary bonus to it.
o Maximization of shareholder wealth is in a way a goal for many, but placing it
as the singular, primary goal is, in a way, superficial and stagnant for the
person, and for the business.
Against paternalism, Kant offers us a method for determining how to act rightly that is
based on reason, good will, and duty. This is the categorical imperative, the command of
reason to act in an unqualified moral way. Explain its three formulations. Where does
its binding force come from? How does this method help us to determine how to act
rationally with imperatives that command absolutely in particular situations? Give a
concrete example.
 The categorical imperative then has three formulation which are the foundations of
morality put into ‘action’ and is the display of how the categorical imperative should
be acted and implemented in the rational being’s life and guiding principle for
morality.
o Universalizability as the method through which the rational being uses to
assess and test for moral rightness or wrongness/universally applicable
morality.
 Good will
 This tests the rightness or wrongness of an action as to whether it can
become applicable to all other beings and become a universal law; that
is, it is binding and without contradiction that every rational being has
and must act upon it, and therefore establishes the duty from the action.
 A maxim based on personal values and truths is formulated
based on the action, then this maxim is tested as to whether it is
a priori (non-contradictory), and then finally the duty is
established and claimed based on the process.
o Human-as-end as the purpose, basis, understanding and motive for actions the
rational being makes.
 Pure reason
 This asserts that man shouldn’t be used or seen as a means to a goal,
and posits that humanity is given dignity and not a price.
 Price has a finite limit and has its equivalent, while dignity has
no definitive equivalent and its worth is in itself rather than
relative.
o Dignity needs nothing but reason to give the subject its
‘price’ and ‘utility’ to the rational being.
 The rational being who makes use of humanity as a means to an end
must remember that the subject – who are rational beings and therefore
are not actual objects – are ends in themselves as well.
 And as rational beings we understand the point of real value
and price versus having dignity and having the capability of
reason.
 The point is that the rational being who uses humanity as a means to an
end must remember that the subject they use are capable of reason and
are rational beings themselves and can give their own value and are
capable of reason – which is the hallmark of the rational being.
o Autonomy as the manner through which the rational being uses as its ‘energy’
to do the moral action.
 Duty
  Asserts that if the action the rational being takes is because it is out of
want in line with the maxims of morality is holy, and otherwise it
becomes an obligation (in conformity with duty because there is
another motive behind it or it was commanded of the person.
 These formulations are the backbone of realizing and acting upon morality in that
these formulations are principles for morally right actions.
o The binding force of these aspects then is in our autonomy, but first through
appealing to our humanity – essentially the conditioning before autonomy
happens. It is in our being human and also respecting others as human –
essentially respect for human dignity – that we are able to act in a morally
right way.
 It can be argued that it is in being a rational being that we place our
humanity, since it is the hallmark of being human beings by being a
rational being.
 I.e., it is logic that morality is binded to.
o However there are instances that rational beings are immoral or amoral
altogether, because they see morality (being good) as something illogical or
unnecessary in life.
o By understanding our own humanity and respecting that others are people as
well, we would be able to carry ourselves and act in a morally good way that
is appropriate to the situation we are in.
 Acting in a morally correct manner through which we are able to
immediately and appropriately act is, of course, dependent on the
situation we are in and what values we personally hold.
o It becomes linked to our autonomy, because once it has a hold or grasp of our
humanity, it because an active choice and decision that we want to act on the
morally good action. It becomes an action that is ‘second nature’ that we wish
to act on it.
 We act in a morally good way because we understand that it is the right
thing to do and we wish to do it, compared to something that was
imposed on us.
 Autonomy is when we act on it because we want to act on it,
for the sake of our own want. An action that appeals to our
humanity is due to an extrinsic imposition of some sort of law
or rule outside of us.
o Arguably, our humanity is an intrinsic idea and is
actually primary nature to us, however how our
humanity is formed is technically something that is
‘imposed’ on us and something we learn.
 It becomes second nature because it is the nature we choose to go with.
 By choosing an action that is applicable to everyone, that is from our own want to do
it, and that respects other people who may be affected by our choice allows us to
essentially live with a clear conscience. The morally right action is an action that
should be meant and applicable for everyone, and should benefit everyone as well.
 An example of an action that would be rational and good is how when I have a panic
attack I have the option to metaphorically die in my own suffering quietly, but my act
of reaching out and breaking down in front of people – while seemingly counter-
intuitive – does actually help me in a way, in that I am able to move forward with and
from the panic.
o The act of my ‘healing’ comes with my accepting it and what is happening,
and it happens when I accept that I want to act on it for myself, not because
I’m told repeatedly that when I have a panic attack I should ask for help or
take my medicine – I act on this because I have chosen to and not because I’m
told to do it because it is the most appropriate and conducive method of help.
What is the difference between Bentham’s version of Utilitarianism and Mill’s? Why is
it then better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied? The greatest happiness
principle offers an intuitive and measurable way to determine what is right—by
estimating the maximum net benefits (or lowest net costs) of each alternative
action/decision in a particular ethical dilemma, but is it merely a cost-benefit analysis?
 The difference between the two is their view on the view on pleasure and happiness,
or the hierarchy of the utilitarian happiness. Bentham argues that pleasure is the goal
of utilitarianism, and the maximization of please and minimization of pain of the
individual; Mill views happiness for the greatest number.
o Bentham views utilitarianism solely for the individual and their achievement
of pleasure.
 Quantified pleasure for the individual and solely for the individual.
o Mill views utilitarianism as for the greatest number of people, and for the good
of other. Mill also views pleasure (gratification) as a base or lower impulse or
happiness, he does not discount this on the base level for what an individual
should be able to achieve before ascending to achieving happiness.
 Pleasure and achievement of this and minimizing pain is a base
impulse in which the individual experiences and tries to achieve before
achieving higher pleasures (which is happiness).
 He also views that utilitarianism isn’t exactly a matter of minimizing
pain and maximizing pleasure and of balancing the two for every act,
but more of acting to bring about the greatest good in general for
everyone.
o It is by being able to distinguish higher pleasures from lower pleasures that we
are able to separate ourselves from being animals, as Mills says. Being
Socrates satisfied would mean we are essentially learned people, someone
with wisdom and knowledge over things – and being wise people, we are able
to distinguish one thing from another.
 We would be able to essentially understand higher happiness from base
appetites.
 Lust vs. love
 Mill’s view on utilitarianism holds that every person is capable of maximizing
pleasure and minimizing pain, but attaining happiness and being able to appropriately
manage it for the good of everyone is the main principle of Mill’s view.
o Putting aside one’s own individual happiness and gain for the sake of the
majority is the main principle as compared to attaining it for ourselves.
 The good for the many is guiding and primary principle.
o Greatest happiness principle holds that happiness for the greater number rather
than greatest pleasure.
 This is a matter of balancing pain and pleasure to be able to act in
general rather than acting in accordance to the old utilitarian view of
sole pleasure for the individual.
 It is less of sacrificing one’s happiness but really rather finding
balance between our own happiness and the common general
good.
 While the point of utilitarianism may seem like a cost-benefit analysis (for
maximizing pleasure/happiness and minimizing pain), it is more of a matter of finding
balance to be able to achieve the greatest happiness for everyone.
o It becomes a cost-benefit analysis when one analyses how to act with respect
as to how the greatest happiness will be achieved for everyone.
 Common good is the end goal of the greatest happiness principle.
 It is a higher level of happiness when one is able to put first the
greatest happiness for everyone than happiness or pleasure.
 It is a matter of how one is able to analyse and sacrifice one or the
other in terms of the receiver/affected person(s).
 What one sacrifices, the other gains: the individual’s sole
happiness for the pain of the greater number; or the individual’s
sacrifice of happiness/pleasure for the happiness of the greater
number.
 In a way, the greatest happiness principle is a cost-benefit analysis, however it isn’t
merely a cost-benefit analysis. This would better be compared to the nichomachean
ethics’ finding the mesotes – where the GHP is considered a balance of sorts between
one’s own happiness and want, versus the common general happiness; the deficiency
and excess, respectively.
o The method of utilitarianism should be in a manner that is able to at least
appease both sides of groups to allow each side to achieve the ‘greatest
amount of happiness’ for both.
Aristotle describes the phronimos as someone who consistently does the right thing
(mesotes) and has nurtured and sustained her prudential judgment (phronesis) through
habituation (ethismos). In this context, what is the “virtuous cycle” and how does this
promote happiness? Explain all of this systematically.
 The virtuous cycle is a method, or spiral, through which the virtuous person is able to
constantly act in a manner that is virtuous and thus bring them happiness. This
virtuous cycle is a self-perpetuating, self-sustaining cycle through which one is able to
act and assess how to carry themselves in a situation.
o The virtuous person (phronimos) is someone who is able to do an action that is
considered right in the given situation and in the right moment or time, and
does this with good judgment. This phronimos is considered a virtuous person,
because their action is something of second nature to them – they act in a
manner that is almost automatic to them.
 A virtuous person is considered virtuous because they are able to act
on or carry out an action in a manner that is most appropriate to
achieve the end goal and is in a manner that is consistently
good/virtuous.
 It isn’t virtue alone that distinguishes a virtuous person from an
akratic person.
 What marks a person as being virtuous or being phronimos is
the fact that they flourish as they act on their virtuousness.
They flourish and thrive because of the prudence and control
they have over themselves and their actions – they are aware of
how they are and how to act.
o The virtuous person then is able to attain happiness because they know how to
act in a certain way, and this acting in a certain way allows the person more
insight and knowledge and allows them to grow and learn.
 In a way, phronimos or the virtuous person and cycle is a sure-fire
method for the person to know they are doing well and this doing well
allows them to grow and allow them to act better in the future.
 We compare the virtuous cycle to the vicious cycle, where a harmful or counter-
productive action produces an equally harmful result, but this cycle perpetuates itself
in a manner that continues to harm the doer.
o In the example of depression, more specifically self-harm or NSSI, the doer
intentionally harms themselves in an effort to relieve themselves of any
psychological or emotional pain. The physical pain, in their minds, would
outweigh the emotional or psychological pain they experience prior to the self-
harming.
 This is a vicious cycle in that the action is only a momentary bandaid
to the problem, but this bandaid actually is also harmful and down not
actually help the situation; in fact, this bandaid does more harm than
actually anything.
 In the situation of self-harming, the act of self-harm is literally
more evident that there is a problem, and this adds to the
problem of whatever it was that troubled the person to begin
 with. The fear of the self-inflicted wounds being seen would
also add to more stress to the person, and the aftermath of the
self-harming adds also to the stress that the person experienced
to begin with.
 Using an example of the same vein for the virtuous cycle, someone who has
phronimos would understand that self-harm is not an action of prudent judgment –
however, this person may experience it once (although I do not encourage it) and
understand that this is an action that is appropriate for any given situation or time.
This person would then seek an action or solution that would be a lasting solution to
their emotional or psychological pain.
o This action of seeking an actual and productive solution would inevitably
bring happiness to the person, because it is an action that is (1) healthy; (2)
useful in the sense that it can be used to solution future problems that are
similar to the initial problem; and, (3) it allows the person to grow in the sense
that they are able to cope better with situations similar to the first one, and
allows the person a general better knowledge of how to proceed and even help
others if need be.
 A virtuous person is considered a happy person in that they live an active and
productive life that allows them to grow and benefit in their own right and method.
Elaborate on how Aristotle argues that happiness (eudaimonia) is an activity of the soul
that employs a variety of external as well as internal goods, which are after all
“virtuous” (arete). Unlike the akratic person, the virtuous person (phronimos) has so
habituated herself to a stable state of character (hexis). In this entire discussion, does
virtue ethics endorse the claim that virtue is sufficient for happiness? Explain.
 Eudaimonia, which is the ultimate end goal of the human being, is the result of the
virtuous cycle as it continuously perpetuates itself and as the person grows. It is in
acting on the virtuous cycle that we are able to achieve arête and eudaimonia in the
end.
o Arête is achieved one the person is able to habitually act on the virtuous cycle
– the person because virtuous and becomes excellent in both the action and in
the virtue they have been acting on. It is an activity of the soul because of this
arête, because it is a higher form of happiness and is considered intrinsic rather
than an extrinsic good.
 It is an activity of the soul also because of the aspect the action affects
– which is the soul. Other activities and goods have an effect on how
we live our lives and how life is on a day-to-day basis, while activities
of the soul affect how we are as a person, as we become someone who
is either virtuous or akratic.
 A virtuous person is someone who is holistic, and essentially
‘whole’ and content with their situation and life, whoever they
are someone who also strives for the goodness and best in
themselves and for others.
 The akratic person is someone who is essentially always
‘starved’, while they are able to immediately satisfy their
desires because they immediately quell it, they are always
starved in the sense that they will not be able to know or learn
when enough is enough.
 The virtuous person then is someone who has attained hexis in the sense that they are
able to know when a limit has been reached, they know when and where their place is,
and are able to stay in that satisfied state. In the face of the world falling apart, you are
who you are.
o An example of this would be when I was diagnosed with depression, and then
PTSD; the very moment my psychiatrist told me I had depression I felt my
world stop and I saw myself walking a well-lit path I made become a horror
show; and when she suggested that I could have PTSD, I felt my whole life
and world break around me, I saw everything I was and wanted crumble and
thrown in a fire. I thought my whole life and what I wanted was going to go
into ruin, and that I needed to have this drastic rebranding of myself and of my
future – but I became lost on who I would have become and what I would do.
 I saw how hexis worked in this situation because I saw myself and how
I’ve always been waver – had I fallen into myself I would no longer be
able to function as how I have always have, I would quite honestly
become a different person altogether to be able to match my situation
and experience.
  I understood that a person may only be shifted from their hexis – their
stable state and place – by momentously grave happenings.
 Given this situation, I think that virtue alone cannot sustain happiness, in that the state
of having virtue is different from being in the disposition of hexis or consistently a
virtuous person. In being happy or attaining eudaimonia, one should have a balance of
virtue (excellence and of being a good person with sound judgement/phronimos), and
should be in a constant disposition of hexis.
o One can be virtuous but unhappy.
 Same example as how I was before I was able to receive treatment; my
friends considered me as one of the best people they knew, one of the
kindest people because I was a good person who wrung myself dry for
other – kung hindi lubos, kapos – but in that constant state of my being
a good person, I was unhappy. I was unhappy because I felt that it was
not enough, it was insufficient; there was a dissonance between my
actions and want with my internal state, because I saw my being ‘a
good person’ as my brand, as a means to an end – and this view of
means to an end, despite objectively getting me to being a ‘virtuous
person’. I did not feel happy being ‘virtuous’, because in essence,
virtue was lacking.
 I am aware however that this is biased because of biochemistry
but bleh.
o Virtue is only an ingredient to happiness, but it isn’t the only thing that
equates to happiness.