Approach Of Virtue Ethics Regarding Moral Dilemmas example essay topic

The object of this essay is to establish whether there is an ethical theory that can be successfully applied to business organisations. In order to answer this question, it is necessary first to define the major ethical theories, which are utilitarianism, deontology and virtue ethics, before determining whether there are any other options. After that, the ethical needs, problems and limitations of work organisations will have to be examined so that the different theories can be evaluated in this context. It will also be important to draw a distinction between the terms "accurate" and "useful" as these actually result in two different questions the answer to which need not necessarily be the same. Another essential part of this discussion is the more general question why there should be ethics in work organisations in the first place, and to what extent ethical behaviour is feasible in the business world. Hopefully this will provide a framework within which the answer to the essay question can be included.

To begin with, the "traditional" approaches to solving moral problems will be defined, namely those of act-utilitarianism and deontology. These are traditional not because they have existed longer than virtue ethics, but because for a long time they have been the approaches most commonly used as a basis for trying to solve ethical problems. After looking at these two moral theories, the approach of virtue ethics regarding moral dilemmas will be investigated in order to compare differences and advantages as well as problems. Utilitarianism is a form of consequential ism developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

It adopts the consequential ist view that it must be right to make the world a better place and therefore the right action is the one that produces the best consequences. Utilitarianism takes this one step further and defines the action that will produce the best consequences as the one that produces the most happiness. Act-utilitarianism holds that each case should be judged separately in terms of which possible action would maximis e happiness; this means that there are no rules to follow, but the theory seems to provide a decision-procedure to act upon in that one acts upon a principle of justice. Intuitively this seems to be an appealing solution to ethical dilemmas.

To maximis e happiness makes utilitarianism a noble ideal. Furthermore, we are offered a clear decision making procedure when confronted with situations of moral uncertainty, with a definite goal towards which we should strive, namely the fulfilment of the Greatest Happiness Principle. In addition to this it has the property of in that the right action will be right for everyone. However, as a pragmatic and functional system of moral analysis, Utilitarianism has a number of difficulties. One of the major problems is the fact that it is extremely difficult to quantify happiness, and if it is not possible to decide which of several available actions produces the most happiness, it follows that it is not possible to decide which action is the right one. Also a particular action generating a high degree of happiness may have unforeseen consequences that have the opposite effect.

Can it be morally right to have a completely innocent and well person killed if two seriously ill people could be saved by an organ transplantation? Is an action always and incontrovertibly right because it gives greatest happiness to the greatest number of people? - Brady (1999) refutes this: "the majority vote is not an ethic; it is a social choice technique". Deontology as promoted by Kant on the other hand denies that the right action is the one that produces the best consequences. It is based on a set of moral rules, and the right action is supposed to be the one that conforms with these rules, whereas certain other types of action are morally forbidden. Deontology seems to appeal to common sense as duties include special obligations to family and friends and it gives people a guideline for morally correct behaviour.

Also, there is a wide range of actions that are classified as morally permissible, which means that there is no obligation to do them, but they are not forbidden. It has one further category of action, the: actions that are morally good but not obligatory for they are over and above the requirements of duty. One of the main problems with this theory is the possible clash of duties that such a rigid system of rules will inevitably entail, when applied to the real world. However, there is some merit in the adoption of universal regulations covering, for example, health and safety of employees, and employee rights, in businesses internationally. The Kantian de ontological position also suggests that people should be treated "with respect and as ends in their own right, not solely as means to other's ends". (Legge, 1998) However, in a profit-motivated system such as a business organisation, even a highly enlightened one, it is difficult not to perceive workers as a means to a profitable end.

Virtue ethics is a very different approach to the others and central to Aristotle's work. It does not primarily concentrate on the right action as such; the right action according to virtue ethicist's is the one that the virtuous agent would do. Virtue ethics takes the central feature of morality to be the virtuous character, and the account of what the virtues are as the basis of the theory. The virtuous agent is not someone who maximis es happiness or conforms to a set of rules, but someone who acts wisely, justly and honestly. The character traits that one needs to possess in order to be a virtuous agent are those that are conducive to human flourishing. Unfortunately it is impossible to determine whether an individual possesses these traits, or simply appears to.

Also, it is not clear exactly what constitutes the best combination of virtues. For example Aristotle cited courage wisdom and justice as being of prime importance, whereas other ethical systems might differ. When defining a virtuous work ethic, the manager might cite loyalty, trust and obedience; the worker fairness, dependability and safety. Cicero elaborated these notions, and applied them to certain business contexts in a long letter to his son 'On Duties' (De Offic iis).

His position is pragmatic, and he attempts to address the very practical question of what we ought to do when what is 'right' and what is 'advantageous or profitable' conflict with each other. Let us regard this as settled: what is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even when it enables you to make some gain that you believe to be to your advantage. The mere act of believing that some wrongful course of action constitutes an advantage is pernicious. (Cicero: Selected Works, p. 177) To some extent this embraces the approach to ethical debate, which offers 'an ethic of caring - an ethic that arises from personal attachments, values, feelings, cares. ' (Brady, 1999). Cicero gives a number of pragmatic examples of business ethical dilemmas, borrowed in part from the Stoic philosophers Diogenes of Babylon and Antipater of Tarsus.

The limitations of this essay allow only a very brief paraphrase of his arguments. He relates the story of a severe famine in Rhodes, and an honest merchant who has a quantity of grain. The merchant also has knowledge of other large shipments on the way, which would inevitably reduce the price of his own supply, were the Rhodians to be aware of this. The ethical question of course is 'should the merchant tell the Rhodians what he knows to be damaging to his profit?' In another example, Cicero cites the case of a house seller who is aware of certain defects in his property of which he fails to inform the buyer. For both instances Cicero argues that the seller should have informed the buyers of information that would harm their purchase. 'it was essential to good faith that any defect known to the vendor must be made known to the purchaser. ' Cicero, De OfficiisSuch ethical arguments are still apparent today, and especially with the vast increase in business information that is now available through electronic media.

There has been some argument that in the case of the Rhodian famine, since there was no actual defect in the goods, then the merchant should not have been obliged to disclose (Richards, 1997). Cicero does not refer specifically to defects in the goods, however, and a better interpretation would be defects in the transaction. Patently in both cases, there are defects within the transaction to the buyer's disadvantage. It is arguments like these that have helped to develop such legislation as the Trades Descriptions Act 1975, legislation protecting buyers against misrepresentation, and the recent inclusion within the Trades Descriptions Act of Estate Agents, formerly notorious for just such misrepresentation as outlined by Cicero.

Though often complex, work organisations share the same psychological dynamics apparent in any group of individuals. They tend to be complex because they entail many combinations of groups, sub-groups and dyadic relationships, each often interacting with others. However, despite the complexity, certain broad observations can be noted. Work organisations are often hierarchical - until fairly recently almost exclusively so - which presupposes always that one individual may have power over another. Such power, and the abuse of it, is referred to by Madsen and Shafritz (1990) as Managerial mischief.

In their book the authors explain that 'managerial mischief' includes 'illegal, unethical, or questionable practices of individual managers or organizations, as well as the causes of such behaviors and remedies to eradicate them. ' However, power may not always be from management to workers. Trade unions have the ability to empower workers, allowing there to be a shift of power in their favour, given certain circumstances. The organisation does not exist in a vacuum.

As well as interacting internally with its own workforce, it interacts externally with its customers, where the question of power asymmetry is also apparent. Where such power asymmetry exists, then so too does the ethical problem of how, when and where that power is applied. Supporting the moral obligations inherent within the organisation is that aspect of English Common Law that requires a 'duty of care' to others in the community. Although maintained in law, it is debatable ethically as to what may constitute 'care' in each situation; in much the same way that 'happiness' cannot be quantified in Utilitarianism. Since the law cannot give more specific direction as to what constitutes 'care', then it becomes the responsibility of the organisation to define its own criteria. However, these criteria can still show immense variation in theory and application.

The Victorian manager of a 'dark satanic mill' might argue that he 'cared' for his workforce by providing employment as a safeguard against starvation - the workers might have argued that the lack of safety and hygiene constituted a lack of 'care'. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines the terms 'accurate' and 'useful' thus: accurate - adjective 1. Conforming exactly to fact; errorless. 2.

Deviating only slightly or within acceptable limits from a standard. 3. Capable of providing a correct reading or measurement: an accurate scale. useful - adjective 1. Having a beneficial use; serviceable 2. Having practical utility (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition 1992 Houghton Mifflin Company.) The discussion above which briefly outlined some of the more important ethical theories, also highlighted the primary difficulties when relating these to pragmatic circumstances - principally the impossibility of quantifying precisely the level of 'happiness', 'good' or 'care' that the ethic aspires to. For this reason, the term 'accurate' is not one that can readily be applied to ethical debate".

The search for ethical universals has been popular among ethicist's. What frustrates that search, however, is ethical reality. Human life is so rich with situational detail and concrete idiosyncrasies that it tests the capacity of universals to deal adequately with experience. There just seem to be exceptions to every rule".

(Brady, 1999) This difficulty is further highlighted in a speech by Townley (1992) where he states that '... it ought to be fairly easy to choose between right and wrong by relying on principles, but business activity often demands that we select from alternatives that are neither wholly right or wholly wrong. ' Much more flexible in the context of this essay is the term 'useful', though its very flexibility may render it difficult to analyse, for it begs the question 'useful to whom?' and therefore 'ethically conducive to whom'. There are certain business advantages to be gained by adopting ethical practices, which are in themselves ethically debatable. Donaldson and Davis (1990) argue that managing ethical values in the workplace can have the effect of legitimizing managerial actions, and McNamara (1999) suggests that 'Ethics programs promote a strong public image', which in our 'highly visible society can be essential to the long-term survival of a company.

However, notwithstanding these objections, there are many valuable reasons for the employment of ethical policies in work organisations. It can be argued that the adoption of ethical values in the nineteenth century helped to improve society generally with the institution of employee rights, the abolition of child labour, and the development of health and safety guidelines. Whether the motives behind these changes were entirely altruistic is debatable, since they patently helped the interests of business as it emerged into the twentieth century, but it seems reasonable to conclude that an overall good was achieved (as required by the Utilitarian approach) by the adoption of universal rules (which would conform to the Kantian de ontological schema). Both act-utilitarianism and deontology fail to provide a definite answer on the criterion of usefulness in the matter of making decisions in the actual cases.

This leaves us with virtue ethics as the last theory to consider for a possible solution. Like the other two theories, this sounds a bit too vague as a decision-making procedure. Another problem with this theory is that there is no clear account of the important virtues; Aristotle for example regards courage, wisdom and justice as most important, whereas the Christian approach emphasizes faith, hope and charity. In conclusion, it can be appreciated that the principle ethical theories each have particular difficulties when applied to the highly practical world of business - " businesses are are still hungry for material of a pragmatic nature that will assist in making business ethics operational" and the academic "theoretical frameworks... have not served the business community well in their efforts to raise ethical awareness" (McDonald, 1999). The philosophical arguments surrounding Utilitarianism, Deontology, and Virtue ethics are at the same time too vague and too inflexible to encompass the constantly changing, dynamic interactions that characterise the business environment. The practical wisdom of Cicero, and the approach that has been developed since may be a way forward.

Certainly, as Brady (1999) puts it: "An ethic of personal relationships is obviously important for the business world where much successful activity depends on co-operation to all those interested in or affected by a firm's activities". Since it seems to be the pragmatic nature of business that makes a universal ethic difficult to achieve, perhaps the only pragmatic answer is to use those aspects of each of the theories that particularly suit particular situations. Unfortunately this of course allows for unlimited managerial manipulation, and is basically unhelpful, since any kind of decision can be justified. Summing up, none of the major ethical theories nor any combination of their different aspects, provide an accurate or useful approach to work organisations in themselves. Only by continued research into the nature of businesses and the organisations of which they are constructed, may a suitable solution emerge.

Bibliography

Allison, R.E. : 'Ethical Values as Part of the Definition of Business Enterprise and Part of the Internal Structure of the Business Organisation. ' in Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17, Nos. 9-10, July 1998 Brady, F.
N. 'A Systematic Approach to Teaching Ethics in Business. ' in Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 19, No. 3, April II 1999 Cicero: Selected Works.
Penguin Classics, Harmondsworth - England 1971 Donaldson, D.
and Davis, E. : 'Business Ethics? Yes, But What Can it Do for the Bottom Line?' Management Decision, Vol 28, 6, 1990 Legge, K.
Is HRM ethical? Can HRM be ethical?' in Parker, M. (ed. ): Ethics and Organisations. Sage Publications - London 1998 Madsen and Shafritz Essentials of Business Ethics.
Penguin Books 1990 McDonald, G.
Business Ethics: Practical Proposals for Organisations. ' in Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 19, No. 2, April I 1999 McNamara, C.
Complete Guide to Ethics Management: An Ethics Toolkit for Managers. ' The Management Assistance Program for Nonprofits 1999 (web) McNaughton, D.
Moral Vision. Blackwell - Oxford 1988 Norman, R.
The Moral Philosophers. Clarendon Press - Oxford 1983 Pearson, G.
Integrity in Organisations. McGraw-Hill Book Company - London 1995 Richards, R.
Cicero and the ethics of honest business dealings. ' The Online Journal of Ethics 1997 Townley, P.
Business Ethics: Commitment to Tough Decisions. ' Vital Speeches, pp. 208-211, 1992 (Jan).