(Watch and Discuss) Moral Leadership Across Difference

On January 31, 2019, LCN held an Online Session on Moral Leadership Across Difference with Harvard Professor Chris Robichaud.

Watch the recording below, then join in on the ongoing discussion in the comments below.

Polarization, political correctness, fake news – these are words that we often use to analyze the reasons why democracies are at risk.

At its core – we are asking how can we speak our mind and listen to one another, when we have different moral perspectives.

Professor Chris discussed the topic of Moral Leadership and shared strategies for engaging in meaningful collective action across political and moral differences.

Organisers from 12 different countries joined the discussion.

Have something to add? Join the discussion in the comments below.

Comments 4

  • comment author

    Hi! Here are some discussion questions we have sent out to Chris. Stay posted for his responses, but we would love your opinion as well!

  • comment author

    MATTHEW LEWIS
    
I am simmering on the idea that both civility and intellectual humility (as I understand them) are largey about a personal disposition, a way to commit to entering the world for yourself and on your own terms. But what of the intractable tensions/entanglements that exist out there that have nothing to do with personal commitments. Ultimately, can/will commiting to these two ideas – civility and IH – ‘do’ something and create the sense of traction that change is possible?


  • comment author

    Sarah Hertz
    
Another series of questions about trust: How might we employ these frameworks (of intellectual humility, of civility) to address the “crisis of trust” in politics today? Might this lack of humility or civility be the cause of declining public trust? Should we even be concerned with cultivating trust in authority, when we lack moral leadership? How would you define “trust”? How do we make policy choices in a low-trust environment?

  • comment author

    Nizar Farsakh:
    “Morality is for those who can afford it”: I think someone said it but I can’t remember who, at any rate, the point is that if we look at people’s morality and especially how it “evolves” or changes through time, we notice that there is a sizeable correlation with interests and/or the cost of carrying such morality/opinions. For example, to what extent is it truly that moving to urban areas makes you more liberal out of genuine conviction vs out of mere innate tendency to adapt and assimilate? It’s easy to be conservative in Saudi Arabia and pretty difficult in San Francisco. So, my question is: Is there a way to correlate interest/cost of adoption vs morality/opinion? Can we figure out a “correction” factor to account for that cost? Can we make those moral positions weighted against the interest they impact?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *