Source No.

6
Hannaford, Robert V. "The Gold Rule: Motive and Method in Moral Reasoning." Hannaford,
Robert V. Moral Anatomy and Moral Reasoning . Lawrence: University Press of Kansas,
1993. 104-123. Print.
University Press of Kansas. Moral Anatomy and Moral Reasoning. 2013. Website. 24 March
2015.

The author of Moral Anatomy and Moral Reasoning is Robert V. Hannaford. He is a

professor of philosophy at Ripon College in Ripon, Wisconsin and is editor of Concept
Formation and the Explanation of Behavior.
In chapter seven, titled, The Golden Rule: Motive and Method in Moral Reasoning
Hannaford connects moral reasoning to religion. He lists off examples from the Bible and the
Torah of the Golden Rule (104-105). The weird part about these different books having the same
rule is that they are from completely different parts of the world, written by different cultures,
and based off of different societies of people. He then goes on to saying that these rules cannot
be traced to no single historical source or social movement. Yet, how are the words the same? It
only makes him wonder whether some common elements of them might reflect something
fundamental to all moral reasoning; as each claim to do.
He asks the reader as to why these common parts should appear universally and as to why
people take them so seriously. In the chapter, he wants to answer these questions by drawing on
the account of the moral person we have developed and using that account to argue that the Rule
captures an essential pattern or method of moral reasoning between individuals. In this section,
Hannaford is reaching out to religious researchers and psychologists by connecting the thinking
of the mind and religious backgrounds.

Much of the first part of this chapter explains the responsibility we have for each other.
Hannaford writes, the terms of this moral language must be applied in accord with generally
accepted criteria, one of which is that their use must be supported by generally acceptable
reasons; a reason that is generally acceptable must be acceptable by those affected by the action,
and so we must take into account, and show concern for, the interests and purposes of those
affected (106). What this all means is that we must enter into the situation of the other and act
out of respect for what a person in that situation requires. Going back to having wrong into right;
we can be doing wrong because we feel that it is right for a particular person. But that does not
necessarily make it morally right.

Other quotes: "It's about doing," he explains. "We provide food and water for the victims of an
urban riot or a nearby natural disaster, and when we are met by a lost child, we try to help it in
finding its parents. As responsible people we [make] choices that we believe can be shown to be
acceptable to others in the community. What is morally correct must reflect the judgment of the
moral community (University Press of Kansas).
This demand to put ourselves in others position and consider what would be acceptable to them
is a norm that is extended to our conversation as well, though we might not want to characterize
this as a moral application (107).
A good will is not good without qualifications. It may be admirable for one to have benevolent
concern, but that does not mean that there are no qualifying factors (115).
Moral reasoning cannot use the criterion of putting oneself in the place of the other unless it
proceeds by maintaining a sense of self as well as a sense of the other (122).

Analysis: The section of the book that I used was very interesting to me. Coming from a
religious family I never really looked at the Golden Rule as Hannaford did. He questions a lot in
this section and also gives multiple reasons as to how the Rule could have been used to develop
people into what they believe to be right or wrong. His wording is a bit hefty, but google made
sense of a lot of the words for me. Also, if you do not have any past experience with religion it
could be hard to understand the connections.

Source No. 7
Maccoby, Michael. "Narcissistic Leaders: The Incredible Pros, the Inevitable Cons." The
Harvard Business Review (2000): 1-7. Print.
The author of the academic article, Narcissistic Leaders: The Incredible Pros, the
Inevitable Cons is written by Michael Maccoby for The Harvard Business Review. Maccoby is
a psychoanalyst and anthropologist globally recognized as an expert on leadership for his
research, writing and projects to improve organizations and work. He has authored or coauthored thirteen books and consulted to companies, governments, the World Bank, unions,
research and development centers and laboratories, universities and orphanages or taught in
thirty-six countries. He received a BA at Harvard in 1954, then studied philosophy at New
College, Oxford. As a graduate student at Harvard he was a teaching fellow and secretary to the
Committee on Educational Policy at the faculty of Arts and Sciences. Later on he received a PhD
from Harvard in Social Relations; combining social psychology and personality with
anthropology.
In his article, Maccoby talks about leaders from the past and present who exhibited the
characteristics of being a narcissistic. First, giving examples from the present like Bill Gates,
Andy Grove, and Steve Jobs, and then naming out leaders from the past like Napolon
Bonaparte, Mahatma Ghandi, or Franklin Delano Roosevelt. All people that the world has looked
up to because of their leadership abilities, clever minds, new inventions, and persuasiveness. He
focuses on explaining personality type that Sigmund Freud dubbed narcissistic. Freud said,
People of this type impress others as being personalities. They are especially suited to act
as a support for others, to take on the role of leaders, and to give a fresh stimulus to cultural
development or damage the established state of affairs (1). Maccoby explains that narcissists

want to inspire people and to change the world. They look for the future with a bright mind.
While this is true, Maccoby also focuses on telling the reader about the dark side of narcissists.
Being people who influence others they also are manipulative, emotionally isolated, and
distrustful. The article then leads into the pros and cons of these types of leaders. Maccoby seems
to want to reach out to psychologist, or people studying human behavior.
One of the many great things that Hitler did as a leader was gain lots of followers with
the words that he used. In the article Maccoby writes, The simplest definition of a leader is
someone whom other people will follow. Indeed, narcissists are especially gifted in attracting
followers, and more often than not, they do so through language. Narcissists believe that words
can move mountains and that inspiring speeches can change people (3). This is just one of the
many tactics that a narcissist would do to have power.
Analysis: Maccobys article has actually been one of my favorite sources I have found for
my inquiry question. There are many more pros and cons that I would like to use in my paper,
but to write them all down here seemed like too much information and I feel that the reader
would get to gist as to how the rest of the article pans out. I will be using more pros and cons for
my paper to connect leadership and influence with right and wrong of the people. An example
would be how a leader can make someone feel a certain way because they use their words
properly in order to get what they want from the people. I highly recommend this article to
anyone who is looking into leadership.