Sound moral judgment and the ability to maintain the respect of one's peers are important characteristics of effective leadership. Comparatively, sound moral judgment is more important for a leader than their ability to maintain their peers' respect for them from an ethical perspective. In contrast, a pragmatic perspective suggests that the leader's ability to maintain their peers' respect for them takes precedence.
A system of deontological ethics, where people's rights and duties are respected, reinforces the importance of sound moral judgment. Oftentimes, leaders will encounter difficult moments where they have to make hard choices. These choices, albeit difficult, possibly have right or preferred answers. Sound moral judgment can guide them to it. This philosophical position privileges moral judgment because the maintenance of respect can be achieved through unethical, Machiavellian ways. A charismatic, influential, and persuasive leader can prove their decisions as beneficial or justified to their audience even when they are unethical.
At a micro-level, a small group leader may banish a person from the group and lie to the others about the reasons for the removal or exaggerate them. In such a case, the leader has exercise unethical moral judgment but succeeded to maintain their respect among the peers. At a macro-level, for example, in governance and geopolitics, leaders often take decisions that are detrimental to the common public but their rhetoric and influence save them from the embarrassment that they would have deserved from a deontological perspective.
However, many instances of pragmatism would suggest that a leader's ability to maintain their respect among their peers trumps sound moral judgment. Crucial instances may be observed when moral judgment comes at the expense of respect and impairs functionality and net utility. For example, consider the macro-level case of a political leader. A leader that takes decisions benefitting the public may lose subsequent elections if their actions were interpreted or painted as harmful by their electoral competitors. In such a case, the leader's relative inability to be persuasive and influential rendered their superior ability of sound judgment as a disadvantage, compared to maintaining respect.
Based on the cases at hand, a utilitarian perspective would suggest that the answer is generally unclear and depends on the situation--the characteristic that yields a greater net positive is the more important one. For example, if a leader's respect is well-grounded in a society and their persuasion can prevent their reputation from being tarnished, sound moral judgment on matters such as, environmental policy, would produce substantial positives. However, one must also ask, from whom should the positives be? Then, the measurements of such positives would also be challenging, as is already in matters such as environmental degradation and protection. Most importantly though, can the leader prove their position to the people and prevent losing their respect?
In conclusion, both characteristics are important for effective leadership but taking a position depends on one's ethical commitments. A deontological ethical system would categorically prioritize sound moral judgment while the utilitarian perspective renders a ranking between the two context-dependent.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 65, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
... the ability to maintain the respect of ones peers are important characteristics of ...
^^^^
Line 1, column 342, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'leaders'' or 'leader's'?
Suggestion: leaders'; leader's
...pragmatic perspective suggests that the leaders ability to maintain their peers respect...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 60, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'leaders'' or 'leader's'?
Suggestion: leaders'; leader's
...nces of pragmatism would suggest that a leaders ability to maintain their respect among...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, so, then, well, while, for example, in conclusion, in contrast, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.4196629213 137% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 33.0505617978 103% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 58.6224719101 85% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 12.9106741573 194% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2875.0 2235.4752809 129% => OK
No of words: 499.0 442.535393258 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.76152304609 5.05705443957 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72634191566 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22821993212 2.79657885939 115% => OK
Unique words: 237.0 215.323595506 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.4749498998 0.4932671777 96% => OK
syllable_count: 885.6 704.065955056 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 6.24550561798 32% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.420043109 60.3974514979 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.791666667 118.986275619 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7916666667 23.4991977007 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.16666666667 5.21951772744 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 19.0 10.2758426966 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.261112951306 0.243740707755 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0978183257821 0.0831039109588 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0856120806069 0.0758088955206 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164141289854 0.150359130593 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0884294597459 0.0667264976115 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 14.1392134831 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.26 48.8420337079 70% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.5 12.1743820225 111% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.13 12.1639044944 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.19 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 144.0 100.480337079 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.