Week 6 Essay
LEAD 2030 – Leadership Lessons from the Humanities
Dr. Stephanie Scott
University of Pennsylvania
In what ways are Hemingway and Anscombe, respectively, appealing to the tenets of pluralism
and/or universalism in the arguments that they put forth? Where do they agree, and where do they disagree? How do different understandings of pluralism and/or of universalism undergird and/or animate their disagreements? Word count: 600-750.
In this essay, we venture into the realms of pluralism and universalism in leadership through the
perspectives of Ernest Hemingway and G.E.M. Anscombe. Hemingway’s “The Sling and the
Pebble” and Anscombe’s “Mr. Truman’s Degree” and “Influence of Pacifism” serve as focal
points for this exploration. This essay aims to dissect how Hemingway and Anscombe employ
pluralism and universalism in their arguments, how these philosophies inform their views on
leadership, and the points of convergence and divergence in their thought. By examining their
agreements and disagreements, I aim to illuminate how their understandings of pluralism and
universalism animate their views on ethical leadership and decision-making.
In “The Sling and the Pebble,” Ernest Hemingway illustrates a nuanced appeal to pluralism,
subtly yet profoundly embedded within his narrative. Through his reflection on the post-World
War II era, Hemingway articulates a vision of leadership and societal conduct that transcends
rigid, authoritarian structures, favouring a more adaptive, empathetic approach. This perspective
is encapsulated in his assertion, “It is a man’s duty to understand his world rather than simply
fight for it.” This statement underscores the pluralistic ethos of recognising and accommodating
diverse viewpoints and complexities inherent in the human condition. Hemingway’s narrative
does not explicitly endorse universalist principles of absolute moral standards; instead, it leans
towards a recognition of the multifaceted nature of moral and ethical decision-making. His
emphasis on understanding over blind obedience suggests a departure from universal absolutes,
advocating for a leadership style that values the plurality of experiences and perspectives,
resonating with a more relativistic, context-dependent approach to ethics and leadership.
The chapter on Hemingway from Clemens and Mayer also underscores the power of influence
over authority in guiding an organization. As discussed, influence inspires followership not
through coercion, but through shared vision and goals, mirroring Hemingway’s emphasis on
understanding and empathy in leadership.
Anscombe’s works present a contrasting perspective deeply rooted in universalism. In “Mr.
Truman’s Degree,” Anscombe’s critique of President Truman’s decision to use atomic bombs is
grounded in universal moral absolutes, explicitly condemning actions that target innocents,
regardless of the context. She asserts, “in the bombing of these cities, it was certainly decided to
kill the innocent as a means to an end,” reflecting her unwavering commitment to universal
ethical standards that stand firm even amidst the complexities of war. This universalist stance is
further elucidated in “Influence of Pacifism,” where she argues against the moral justifiability of
deliberate acts of murder in war, differentiating them from inevitable casualties. Anscombe’s
approach, marked by a rigorous adherence to moral absolutes, offers a stark contrast to Hemingway’s more nuanced, context-sensitive view. While acknowledging the diverse and complex scenarios of war, her work firmly upholds the supremacy of unchanging moral principles, emphasising the necessity of teadfast ethical guidelines in leadership and decision making, even in the most extreme circumstances.
Despite their contrasting approaches, Hemingway and Anscombe converge on the fundamental
belief that leadership, particularly in times of conflict, is inherently laden with complex ethical
dilemmas. Through his narrative in “The Sling and the Pebble,” Hemingway suggests that
effective leadership requires an empathetic understanding of the human condition, recognising
the diverse experiences and moral complexities that define our world. Anscombe, while
maintaining a universalist stance, similarly acknowledges the weight and gravity of ethical
decision-making in leadership. Her critique of Truman’s actions during World War II, especially
the decision to use atomic bombs, is a testament to the severe moral responsibilities shouldered
by leaders. Both authors underscore the intricate and often burdensome nature of leadership,
marked by the necessity to navigate moral complexities and make decisions that can have farreaching consequences. This common ground in their perspectives illuminates a shared
understanding of the challenging yet crucial role of ethical deliberation in effective leadership.
In conclusion, Hemingway’s “The Sling and the Pebble” reflects a pluralistic view valuing
adaptability and empathy, while Anscombe, through “Mr. Truman’s Degree” and “Influence of
Pacifism,” champions a universalist perspective, emphasising firm moral principles. Despite their
varied approaches, both authors converge on recognising the intricate ethical challenges inherent in leadership, particularly in times of conflict. Their insights collectively highlight the importance of balancing moral flexibility with steadfast ethical commitment, offering enduring lessons for effective leadership in complex moral landscapes.
Works Cited
- Anscombe, G. (1956). Mr. Truman’s Degree. Retrieved from https://projectintegrity.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/mr_trumans_degree.pdf
- Anscombe, G. (n.d.). Influence of Pacifism. Retrieved from University of Pennsylvania. Canvas.
- Hemingway, E. (2015, 02 19). The Sling and the Pebble. Bill Downs, War Correspondent. Retrieved from https://www.billdownscbs.com/2015/02/1946-sling-and-pebble-by-ernest.html
- Mayer, J. K. (1999). The Classic Touch: Lessons in Leadership from Homer to Hemingway, Revised Edition. Contemporary Books.
