INTRODUCTION

Whether in business, government, or non-profits, leaders sometimes act as though generally applicable moral requirements do not apply to their behavior. Generally applicable moral requirements are ethical prescriptions or proscriptions that usually or almost always bind the behavior of actors but can be overridden by other, more weighty moral considerations. In some cases, there will be considerable room for argument as to whether the leaders in question are justified in making exceptions of themselves. Is the CEO justified in breaking a promise if it is the only way to save the company? What about the behavior of the politician who must orchestrate a large-scale deception in order to thwart a terrorist attack? Can the director of a charitable organization justify pandering to a donor on the grounds that it is the most efficient way to garner resources to achieve a worthwhile goal? Other cases, however, will be significantly more straightforward: the executive who condones improper accounting, the state official who authorizes the arrest of political opponents, or the head of the charity who uses fraudulent means to secure a donation. To most of us on the outside, it is reasonably clear that the exceptions these leaders make of themselves are not morally justified.

In this chapter, I am principally concerned with cases in which leaders mistakenly believe that they are justified in making exceptions of themselves.