Moral ethics

Student’s name

Professor’s name

Course

Date

Moral ethics

Aristotle was a Greek scholar who contributed immensely to the fields of ethics, philosophy, biology, and botany. He was a firm believer in teleology. Teleology is a term that describes that states that each object has a final purpose or cause or goal or true ending. Therefore, for one to achieve their good they must attain the function. Human beings are the supreme rulers of the world, and what distinguishes us from the rest of the world is the ability to reason and act on reason. Aristotle uses the term eudaimonia to describe the state human beings achieve for experiencing a good life. Aristotle’s virtue ethics is based primarily on people and their traits rather than the actions (Van Hooft, 2014). Hence, morality has to do with “how should I be?” instead of “what should I do?”. The paper will analyze scenarios in business where Aristotelian principles can apply. It is a case of how someone should behave which is extrapolated in their actions.

Virtue ethics are essential in elaborating on many ethical problems in the business world. Virtue and moral features provide wisdom critical for analyzing specific traits. Aristotle states that every art as well as every pursuit and action aims to do good. Human beings are persistently in search of moral values and appropriate conduct (Garcia-Ruiz & Carlos). Aristotle admits that leading a truthful and virtuous life is not easy but also highlights that people can learn to do good if they are taught. An individual who lives well and does good deeds must be virtuous and knowledgeable. Aristotle categorized all the virtues into four cardinal groups namely courage, justice, practical wisdom, and temperance.

Ethics are applied in the business world either, voluntarily or involuntarily. Virtue ethics provide organizations with the moral foundation for them to operate. Consequently, all business interests and events should promote rather than undermine human life. People and entities should strive to achieve good in along with others. A virtuous business should be selfless. This means that it should consider the well-being of its employees, employers, environment, customers, and community. If this can be done, one can say they have achieved eudemonia.

Take, for example, a situation an executive attends a highly confidential meeting where the board is discussing investment matters that are to boost the company. The company notes that its profits are decreasing hence the need to reach out to new and old investors. The executive reveals this information to a hedge fund firm. The manager uses this information to make millions from the company in one night. The actions of the manager contradict Aristotle’s virtue ethics that define that every action should aim to do good for both the society and person to co-exist. According to this theory, the virtues should be moral (Bessie & Michael). The good can only be assessed when it appeases all the parties involved.

According to virtue ethics, the actions of the manager were indecent, selfish, and inappropriate. Would a virtuous person leak confidential information? The answer is no. The executive’s actions lacked appropriate integrity. The executive is dishonest to his company when he leaks key information about his company. He also broke the trust of his directors and employees. Fairness. He only revealed the information to his friend and not to the rest of the investors who became disadvantaged. One can say that he used the information for his gain. He also lacked self-control otherwise he would not have leaked the information. The intentional and calculative objective of practical wisdom in the virtue framework cannot be stressed enough.

The spirit of teamwork in a business entity is based on trust. Aristotle’s principles have been on the rise in the field of business management (Dierksmeier, 2009). The subordinates firmly believe that their superiors make decisions on behalf of the business in good faith. In this foundation, the subordinates trust that any action that is required of them seeks a goal that is beneficial to all. In this arrangement, the juniors understand that those in management occupy such positions courtesy of some qualities that they possess or certain criteria that they met. Such a process is thought to be rigorous enough so that those who finally get recruited are indeed fit to hold the offices. Therefore, it’s not in bad faith that others occupy managerial positions while others do not. The juniors hope that the superiors will have the same understanding that their subordinates understand the reason why they are not in management and what is expected of them thereof. In this common understanding, there is no mistrust as the superiors are expected not to exploit the juniors while the juniors are expected not to undermine their seniors. However, the application of Aristotle’s principle of action aimed in good faith seems to be the main fabric behind this teamwork.

Besides employees, other stakeholders have an interest in the business. Such stakeholders include investors, customers, suppliers, and shareholders. The integral part of modern business ethics involves a discussion about stakeholders. It is imperative to note that stakeholders such as investors and shareholders do not take part in the day-to-day running of the business. It’s at this point that the incorporation of Aristotelian ethical principles is of importance enjoining the board of management to act in good faith and the interest of the stakeholders (Wijnberg, 2000). The implications of this approach include the cultivation of trust among the stakeholders, which enables the business to run efficiently. Avoidance of public wrangles that sometimes culminate in court cases will also attract more investors and even partnerships. Such a business is expected to flourish and even outmaneuver other competitors in the field.

The goal of any business is to make a profit. This is true from the ownership of the business through the ranks up to the subordinates. Even the stakeholders that do not have a monetary interest in the business, they aim to profit somehow from the business entity. The customers seek to obtain affordable and efficient goods and services, the employees aim at earning a salary for their livelihood, the community in which the business is established looks forward to benefiting through corporate philanthropy and the authorities aspire to earn taxes through transactions that the business entity engages in. Aristotle disputes the “profit motive” which refers to the pursuit of income regardless of customer satisfaction (Boatright, 2019). Predictably, such pursuit of selfish interest is likely to lead to failure of the business. This is because it promotes mistrust among the stakeholders. Any action by any player in the business is seen to be selfish and therefore is not expected to be executed in good faith. The application of Aristotelian ethical principles in this scenario will certainly promote the common interests of every player. This is an act of good faith since one pursues a self-interest while being mindful that others also have a goal to achieve. All the stakeholders will, therefore, accommodate and further each other’s interests, while promoting coexistence.

Virtue ethics explores the possibility of business entities embracing the idea that human beings are born with inherent dignity. This idea implies that each employee has a potential that can be exploited for the common good of the business. However, this could also require empowerment, encouragement, and enhancement by providing the employees with opportunities to explore their capabilities. The scalar chain of command is the formal line of authority and responsibility within an organization. It’s essential in an organization to prevent double subordination. It ensures that decisions are carried out by the top management and executory roles are left to the subordinates. Any communication follows an established chain whereby a subordinate only communicates with his immediate superior. This has ensured the efficient and smooth running of businesses. It’s due to the merits of the utility of command that many argue against the incorporation of Aristotelian ethical principles in the chain of authority. However, the amalgamation of virtue ethics and the dignitary capability will ensure that this approach is not misused (Bertland, 2009). Abuse of this approach will impact negatively on the business. Unchecked authority on the employees may be exploited by some to promote selfish interests with the knowledge that they are not accountable to anyone. However, it’s acceptable that the subordinates have some capabilities that the management lacks. They need to be trained on ethical code even as they’re given authority to exploit their capabilities.

The goals of many businesses do not include their moral obligation to the welfare of the community. This concept, referred to as corporate philanthropy ” is of great significance and a worthy discussion since the community may not benefit from the business directly, hence is prone to be overlooked. It’s the reason why companies release toxic waste products to the environment, regardless of the potential hazardous effects on the health of the occupants of the surrounding. It is even more outrageous when such companies liaise with agencies that are tasked with ensuring that the environment is not polluted to cover up such acts. Ironically, such agencies become accomplices to crimes that they are mandated to fight and protect the citizens. It’s due to such that advocacy is made to incorporate the virtue ethics on the role of the business to the community. Business ethics enjoin management to fulfill the societal mandate (Pies, 2018). Through this approach, businesses will support various community programs including, social welfare, supporting educational programs for the needy families, employing some members from the community, and ensuring their practices do not negatively affect the society.

Disagreement is thought to be an integral part of any business entity. It is due to this understanding that many businesses come up with conflict resolution measures for foreseeable disagreements. The anticipation of failure of such mechanisms informs the decision to also put in place dissolution procedures and liquidated damages. Application of business virtue ethics in conflict resolution may lead to the smooth running of the business when disagreements arise. Virtue ethics advocate for resolution based on the factual and normative facts (Hartman, 2008). This strategy is based on the assumption that the warring parties will negotiate in good faith and with a genuine goal towards reconciliation. Each party will understand the motivation of the other party that led to the conflict. The spirit of forgiveness as a basis for reconciliation will be upheld. Failure of the reconciliatory process will not be interpreted as a culmination of ill will motives but rather an outcome among the potential outcomes.

Aristotelian principles have been applied in other sectors in society. Application in business is expected to result in the efficient running of the business. Virtue ethics itself is based on the assumption that any action is in good faith and has a goal or true ending. Therefore, the incorporation of these ideas in business is also based on being mindful of other’s interests in any action executed. This is the foundation upon which the enactment of these ideas is envisioned to be based upon.

References

Bertland, A. Virtue Ethics in Business and the Capabilities Approach. J Bus Ethics 84, 25–32 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9686-3

Besser, Lorraine L., and Michael Slote, eds. The Routledge companion to virtue ethics. Routledge, 2015.

Boatright, John R. “Aristotle meets Wallstreet: The case for virtual ethics in business, vol 5 no. 2, 1995 pp.353-359.Accessed 15th Oct. 2019.

Dierksmeier, C., Pirson, M. Oikonomia Versus Chrematistike: Learning from Aristotle About the Future Orientation of Business Management. J Bus Ethics 88, 417–430 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-

Garcia-Ruiz, Pablo, and Carlos Rodriguez-Lluesma. “Consumption practices: A virtue ethics approach.” Business Ethics Quarterly 24.4 (2014): 509-531.

Hartman, Edwin M. “Reconciliation in Business Ethics: Some Advice from Aristotle.” Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 2, 2008, pp. 253–265. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27673231. Accessed 15 Oct. 2020.

Pies, I., Beckmann, M. & Hielscher, S. Value Creation, Management Competencies, and Global Corporate Citizenship: An Ordonomic Approach to Business Ethics in the Age of Globalization. J Bus Ethics 94, 265–278 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0263-1

Van Hooft, Stan. Understanding virtue ethics. Routledge, 2014.

Wijnberg, N.M. Normative Stakeholder Theory and Aristotle: The Link Between Ethics and Politics. Journal of Business Ethics 25, 329–342 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006086226794