In my view, the public did not judge Captain Honors wrongly. I say this with full knowledge that what Honors did was wrong. Basing on my own judgments and research I did in the issue, Honors was excelling in what he was doing. This has been going on for many years. The Navy staff have been inspired by this. Every captain has to ensure that the staff is inspired for the long and tedious journey across the unknown. What is more, I strongly believe that Honors was doing what he has known to be done always (Tobak, 2011). What should have been done in this case is that the authorities would have looked for a lasting solution. What is the guarantee that this will not be done by the successor again?
I feel that many have supported him because he was doing all he could to impart morale to his crew. People seem to take Honors as someone who was concerned for the crew and would fall for anything in order to make the crew cheered up. He did not like to have a bored workforce. He made sure that he had an inspired workforce.
Although, like many people, I tend to support Honors I agree with the author that we should not support Honors. I say this because I we feel should have an ethical leadership. Ethical leadership entails integrating ethics to leadership. We should strive to have leaders who have unquestionable character. We should have leadership which has not only good reputation but good character. There is a difference between reputation and character. Reputation is what people think you are while character is who you really. Honors had a good reputation but bad character (Preble, 2011).
I believe that Honors did not have any guiding principles. He stood for anything and that is why he fell for anything. He would do anything that would bring motivation to the crew. In the text I read, leaders should stand up for something in their leadership roles. I support leaders who have guiding principles and leaders like Honors should not be given a chance to thrive in the society.