Abstract

This chapter argues that political and business leaders should adhere to the same moral standards as everyone else, a position that the author terms Evaluative Consistency. According to this view, there is a single set of moral principles applicable to all individuals, regardless of their leadership roles. This contrasts with Evaluative Exceptionalism, the belief that leadership ethics should be evaluated by a different set of moral standards that do not apply to ordinary decision-makers. The chapter begins by outlining the case for Exceptionalism, which holds that the unique moral challenges faced by leaders necessitate different moral rules, or that the context in which leaders operate justifies a separate ethical framework – or even that leaders may be exempt from moral requirements altogether. Next, the author argues in favor of Consistency and against Exceptionalism, suggesting that the same arguments used to reject Exceptionalism in just war theory should also apply to leaders in business ethics and political philosophy. Subsequent sections address objections to Consistency, including its implications in “dirty hands” scenarios and its compatibility with the distinctive duties of leaders, such as fiduciary responsibilities and confidentiality. Finally, the chapter discusses how Consistency impacts the study and teaching of ethical leadership, concluding with a call to apply uniform moral standards across all roles, including leadership.