Virtue_Ethics

The next theory we will consider goes by the name of virtue ethics (sometimes it’s referred to as human nature ethics), and it is well represented by the thought of Aristotle (384-322 BC). Robert Solomon is a contemporary thinker who tries to develop a specifically ‘Aristotelian’ approach to business ethics. Both Aristotle and Solomon present rich and somewhat complex systems of moral thought, so we will have to be a bit selective in what we consider given our time constraints. We can start by going back to Kant and Mill, and noticing a big difference between them and Aristotle. Both Kant and Mill focus on behavior first and foremost, providing a fundamental principle that is to guide our decision-making. So we can understand them both to be asking: how should we act' By contrast, Aristotle focuses on the question of character, asking what kind of persons should we be' So his focus is on the sorts of traits or qualities of character we should aspire to have, and that we wish to see in others. Traditionally, morally good traits—honesty, generosity, courage, self-control—are called virtues, and morally bad traits—dishonesty, greed, cowardice, intemperance—are called vices. So put, Aristotle is trying to say what it is for something to be a virtue, and how it is that we acquire such traits. Aristotle begins by arguing that in general a virtue is a quality that enables a thing to perform its function. In other words, a virtue enables a thing to do well at what that thing is supposed to do. So sharpness is a virtue in a knife because it enables a knife to cut well, which is what a knife is meant to do. Humans don’t exactly have a ‘purpose’ in this sense, but Aristotle argues that we do have a nature, and this defines for us what it is we’re supposed to be. Humans are, he argues, ‘rational animals’. So basically, it is our job, so to speak, to become successful rational animals, and a virtue is any trait that helps us do this. We are not, however, simply rational animals. Humans live complex, social lives in which we play various roles at any given moment. I am, for instance, at one and the same moment a wife, a mother, a daughter, a sister, a friend, a professor, and so on. Each of these roles is one I can play better or worse—we can talk about good wives, good mothers, and so on. So Aristotle’s basic idea can be applied here too: the virtues are those qualities of character that enable me to play these roles well. If wives, mothers, and so on are better able to live up to the obligations and commitments these roles bring if they are honest, for example, then honesty is a virtue. If a lack of self-control interferes with my ability to play these roles well, then a lack of self-control is a vice. To bring it all together, the basic idea is that we ought to be able to list all the traits the help us do well in our various roles, and those that interfere. The first list would be a list of virtues, the latter a list of vices. Just what would be on these lists is a matter of some debate, but Aristotle’s criteria ultimately references reason and our flourishing as humans. Aristotle also considers the question of how we acquire virtues. He does not suppose we are simply born with them, or that they are impossible to acquire. A bit more hopeful, he supposes that we can come to have them by behaving in certain ways and not in others. This is where his theory adds a concern with actions. The idea is rather simple: we acquire a virtue by acting in the appropriate way. We become brave by doing brave things; we become honest by doing honest things. Vices, as you might expect, are acquired in the same way: a habit of cowardly behavior leads to a cowardly character. Aristotle calls this habituation, and you can think of practice in the sense of practicing a musical instrument or a sport. At first you can’t play piano, but by just doing it, a bit mechanically at first and under the directions of a teacher, you learn. After a while you have acquired the ability to play piano, and it just comes naturally. Same with the virtues—acquiring them requires a moral education—a proper upbringing that helps to instill the requisite traits through habituation. As children we act impulsively and without much knowledge, but if we are well brought up we will be led to do virtuous things and prevented from doing bad things, and eventually the virtues become part of our character. (This process is never really over—we should always avoid actions that are more expressive of a vice (acts of dishonesty, selfishness, cowardice, etc.) because they will always tend to corrupt our character. This is where acquiring virtue is quite different from learning to play the piano. Once you learn how to play the piano, then it is said of you that you are a good piano player, regardless of whether you have played recently. This is not the case with acquiring virtue. To have acquired a virtuous character is to perform virtuous actions consistently, whenever presented with the possibility of acting so. You are not said to be honest or just if you do dishonest or unjust things. This is why we are to understand character as a disposition; if you are virtuous then you are disposed to act virtuously, it is just your habit to do the virtuous thing.) The idea of a moral education leads Aristotle to an emphasis on the effects of the broader community on the character of the individual. A society that allows or encourages the exercise of vices will tend to be corrupting, to the detriment of the citizens. It is no surprise that Aristotle is popular among those who worry about the moral condition of contemporary culture, or the corrupting influence of popular culture on impressionable youth. In any case, it is the last feature, the role of the community, that allows Solomon to adopt the Aristotelian approach to business ethics. Businesses, according to Solomon, in effect act like communities for those who work within them, defining for people roles they will play, and what counts as success and failure in those roles. In doing so they encourage some traits and discourage others—a good sales representative will have to do certain things well, while other tendencies might interfere. A business is ethical insofar as it encourages in people traits that are truly good, as opposed to merely profitable. A business is morally troublesome insofar as it demands of its employees that they become people they otherwise would not wish to be, or that we should not want them to be. If honesty is indeed a virtue, then business practices that require dishonesty for their success are corrupting (cf. Carr once again.) Solomon urges us to be mindful of this function corporation plays, and inevitably play, whether we are employees or managers. As employees, we should guard our integrity in a literal sense—we don’t want to spend some 30 or 40 years living two lives that are morally at odds with one another, where we become at work the sort of person we’re trying to raise our children not to be. As managers we should be mindful of the sorts of values and characteristics we are instilling in our subordinates. The workplace can teach valuable moral lessons, instilling the virtues of responsibility, punctuality, loyalty, creativity, affability, and so on. But it can also be corrupting, instilling greed, cynicism, and apathy if we’re not careful. Solomon also presses the point that businesses themselves are invariably members of broader communities, and like all citizens have a role to play in creating the moral environment others have to live in. Not for him is the idea that a company exists merely to make a profit. That is one of its essential purposes to be sure, but not the only one, any more that I come to the college only to get a paycheck. No, as a professor I play a role in the broader college community that obligates me in certain ways to my students, and I can fail them even while succeeding in making a living. Comparably, Solomon would urge that companies see that they have obligations to their employees, their customers, and the surrounding community, in addition to their fundamental task of making money. Solomon has an interesting discussion of the quality of ‘toughness’ in a CEO that turns on this idea. We might turn again to some discussion of the recent Wall Street scandals and the resulting Occupy movement. Their claims about the necessity of ‘corporate responsibility’ are perhaps getting at the same idea. On the other hand, people who work in the corporate world will tell you that things are pretty bleak there, judged from a perspective like this, and that they do feel compelled to exemplify qualities at work that they don’t celebrate in the rest of their lives. Perhaps we can talk about these ideas in discussion.