Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
This essay shall discuss the complexity of ethical thought in an organisation with reference to
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, in the event it shall define and identify behaviours that are
normative and non-normative. The essay shall give a brief outline what ethics is concerned
with in the business framework before delving deep into the ethical concepts held by the two-
schools of ethics as it proceed. The essay shall compare some concepts hidden within the
metaphysics of the virtue and deontology schools and how this relates to the individual and
organisation, basically the debate between importance of society versus the individual. It is
vital to understand the metaphysics of the four scholars, for within their metaphysics in
hidden their conceptions of ethical principles to be discussed later in the essay. The essay
this is because Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are seemingly considered contemporaries in
academic achievements, and then later came Immanuel Kant who proposed “duty ethics or
deontology”. The essay aims to evaluate business ethics utilising the virtue and deontology
philosophical-ethical approach. The essay shall discuss whether the individual actions is
different from the community actions or simply the epistemological problem of actions of an
individual versus the organisation. In effect the essay shall highlight some basic
characteristic(s) that define an act as ethical or unethical using a philosophical approach. In
the lengthy discussion the essay shall give some of the solutions to problem of the individual
and the organisation, and show how both individual and organisation can evaluate their
ethical values to promote the good of both the individual and organisation and at the same
Ethics within business institutions serves to guide the actions of interested individuals and
interested groups (Mcalister et al 96). Ethics is transcends the social, economic and political
issues of an organisation (Mcalister et al 97). There is a thin line between ethical and legal
issues which serves to mean that the discussion of justice is crucial varied with behavioural
norms of the individuals with an organisation. According to Mcalister and others, an ethical
issue is predicament that affects an individual or organisation where they must make a choice
whether the act is right or wrong, but more effectively ethics concerns how humans ought to
conduct themselves in a moral way (Mcalister et al 101). The idea of choice assumes that one
is free and responsible for an act according to what they reason to value and hold.
Responsibility is vital element in defining the framework to evaluate the behaviour of the
The definition of social responsibility assumes a fourfold fact about organisations which is
relevant to the discussion for the “economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic
responsibilities”, all these concepts ought to assume the individual as primary in an institution
(Mcalister et al 8-10). Influence on all levels is a requirement on the issues of justice, for
justice issue arises with the unfair treatment of the individual or organisations, so it
worthwhile that the organisations realises that the legal framework is the ethical basis. An
ethical approach within an organisation should seek fairness and to value the freedom of the
individual according to Amartya Sen (Sen 3- 9, 54-86). There are restrictions within the
business sector when evaluating the human person, for the person is valued using utilitarian
Page 3 of 9
measures or conditions which are John Rawls addresses primary social goods (Mcalister et al
113-15, Rawls 90 -95). So an effective theory of justice should serve as a means to edify both
the individual and the organisation. With this consideration, the essay shall assume to
Socrates once said, “An examined life is not worth living”, since then humankind has sought
the meaning of life and what “good” one should seek in life. The Greeks sought to discover
the advent of history in finding the meaning of life in the polis – city state, on the same note
organisations of today seek the same. Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics argues that all acts
aim to some end or good and that happiness or eudemonia is the supreme good that one
should seek in life (NE 1094a). In relation with business institutions, the same can be
assumed, for the aim of the institution is the “good” or happiness according to Aristotle
different from the economists whose sole aim of business is profit. In his book-Nicomachean
Ethics, Aristotle presents the view that virtue ought to lead to the “Good”, which is the aim,
and he continues to distinguish between pleasure and the good. Aristotle does this using an
analytical empirical methodology, which is somehow different from Plato who uses “ideas
and forms” (Irwin 14,105, 107). Aristotle uses a deductive method to formulate concepts
mainly syllogisms. Aristotle brings forward eudaimonia - happiness and advances the idea
1095a18, 1102a). This can be related to the basic fact that happiness is the end of human
activity. In some way Aristotle advocates that an act is good if it is in line with reason and
promotes the ultimate good or communitarian good (NE1102a). Aristotle distinguishes two
kinds of virtue - thought and character, virtues of thought are acquired from incidents that
happen in space and time, and then he defines virtue of character as innate (1103a). A
business institution would fulfil this by the individuals who work in the institution. In other
words an act is ethical, if it is in line with reason and promotes the “communitarian good”.
Behaviour or acts that follow from reason ought to be objective for them to be good, this does
not exclude the voice of the individual he or she is right on issues that pertain to the business
establishment. It can be problematic to think that a democracy is correct for the unanimous
decision made by the group over the individual. Even within the virtue school there is
disagreement, for there is Socrates who believed that one person can be right against the
Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics argues that virtues are based on reason, thus enable one
to fulfil their function appropriately, and virtues come about through habituation (NE 1139a).
The argument whether acts are innate or come from experience is debatable, and so, Aristotle
accounts for both as means to avoid relativism which he is not in favour of as seen his
metaphysics. Aristotle argues that virtues of character are an activity derived from feelings of
pleasure and pains, but not independent pleasures, pains and feelings (NE 1107a 1-50).
Aristotle asserts that when one abuses his or her responsibility he or she acts contrary to
virtue (that is a vice) this means that if one deliberates on an act then the individual is held
responsible for the act (NE 1113b). In relation to business ethics which seeks virtues of
honesty, trust, respect, responsibility, justice, caring and fairness although this will be
values assumes the good of both individual and organisation. Vices in business ethics are a
form of fraud (Mcalister et al 105). In a hypothetical situation Aristotle would agree that
anything against the virtue of happiness is a vice, and this would need justice to ratify. This
could also mean that there is no business that hires anyone who is dishonest and unjust, for
business institutions somehow seek a universal good (which according to Aristotle is the
common good) that is virtuous individuals who are loyal to the organisation they work for.
Although this is debatable in line with the main aim of business institutions that seek to make
profit(s). A virtuous action is the subject of moral responsibility. Aristotle argues that if an
Page 5 of 9
individual is coerced to act in a certain manner then he or she is not responsible for the
consequences (NE 1114a10, 1114b, 1135a15-28). The vice in business language would be
fraud as mentioned earlier (fraud -false communication ... conceals facts in order to create
false impression ....) and discrimination which are subjects of vices within companies
(Mcalister et al 105 -11). The false prejudices cause harm to organisational functioning than
Much later, Aristotle argues that justice-dikaiosunē should promote the common good (NE
1129b25). Justice is because there is no friendship of equals within society but in business
structures there are hierarchies that means no equality for there is employer and employee
relationship (NE 1159b5-1172a15). Since, there are humans who cause harm because of
greed as witnessed through fraud (Mcalister et al 105). The subject of justice is appropriate
for this relates to the conduct of the individual within an organisation and any act that
individual to be virtuous he or she has potential to act towards the good which is the actual,
for Aristotle. Praxis is the actualisation of a potential act according to Aristotle. Aristotle
propounds that acts are unjust if deliberated out of reason. Acts are just if they fall under the
law and if a person acts voluntary and reasonable he or she ought to promote the good of the
community, this ought not be contrary to the good of the individual according to their
reasoned values. There can be no clash, if and only if there is appropriate use of reason by an
individual as to promote the good of the society. Aristotle acknowledges that errors result
from involuntary actions both to the community and individual (NE 1135a10-20). The
friendship) and phronesis are inseparable to judge (using reason) whether an act is moral or
immoral. This idea of reason as the criteria of moral judgement is somehow similar to
Metaphysics of Morals – FMM paragraph [paragraph abbreviated para] 397, 399, 433, 439,
447). Kant describes that an act consistent with reason is autonomous, and an action arising
from experience or sense causation is heteronomous action (FMM para 433). Kant proposes
that the supreme principle of law is reason and that it is the maxim that guides all human
actions to the promotion of the universal good. Kant argues that a moral imperative should be
unconditional and categorical; this simply means necessarily and sufficiently commanding
out of reason (FMM para 413). Kant’s law of nature propounds that people are ends of any
act and any act should be universal on the basis of the “supreme principle”- reason. The
his ethics, for the CI is imposed by reason autonomously not heteronomously. Kant’s CI
beneficial that a person who works as a cabbage collector to continue without a protective
outfit for he or she might harm his or her health or die because of unhygienic conditions at
work while is different from a utilitarian who considers maximisation of profit. Kant
describes the law of nature, offers that act as if the maxim of your action were to become
your will”, this somehow suggests that the act is universalised and presupposes the common
good (FMM para 403). In the second formulation of the CI-humanity or kingdom of Ends, act
always in treating others as ends not as means, and lastly –autonomy, act as if your will
regard yourself as legislating universal laws (FMM para 436-37). This affect the business
organisations which mainly use utilitarian means to make profits neglecting the condition of
the individual worker treating the person as means to an end. Justice for Kantians is when the
person is treated with respect and work edifies their dignity. For Kant humans perform acts
Page 7 of 9
due to duty and freedom in this he differs from school of utilitarianism. Kant is somehow
different from Aristotle who seeks happiness according to reason, but for Kant happiness is
independent from goodwill and goodwill conforms to reason (FMM para 393-97). For Kant,
morality is not only about happiness as in the case of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle “duty”
(Irwin 32-35). Kant in Foundations of Metaphysics of Morals, proposes four ways that are
contrary to duty or simply imperfect duties, he proposes first committing suicide, second-
lying in borrowing money and to promising to pay back and others (FMM para 422-23 ,
pg39-41).
Moral worthiness for Immanuel Kant is beneficial not out of inclination but duty, secondly,
not in purpose to be attained by act, but in line with the principle of volition, thirdly, doing
something according to the categorical imperative not happiness as seen within the virtue
school (FMM para 417-418 ). Kant denounces an action done out of faith, for he prefers duty
as descent of reason. Morality law should be valid for all, Kant argues not for a few (FMM
para 429). Kant affirms this in his conclusive remark of the third section of book-
Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals when he says, “The practical use of reason with
respect to freedom leads also to an absolute necessity, but ... only laws of actions of a rational
being as such.”
After analysing the two schools the problem of universals and a particular is partially
resolved, for both cases are moderated by reason. The individual and organisation can
converge or come to what John Rawls calls “equilibrium” through what Amartya Sen calls
public reasoning (Idea of Justice 324-37, Rawls 48-51). What this means is that in the
process of seeking justice for both the individual and the organisation it good for both parties
to negotiate while satisfying the good of the parties involved. The extreme problem is that
organisational welfare. Utilitarianism holds the view that an action is right or wrong based on
the number of people or it seeks the greatest happiness and avoids pain. This view seeks to
treat the individual as a means rather than an ends, hence the exploitation of the individuals,
all decisions and responsibilities should not treat the person indifferent to his or her nature
that is violating his or her freedom or dignity (Mcalister et al 14-15). The common
denominator for the two previous schools- virtue and deontology is that the person is the end
Social responsibility is a single component that is essential in the approach of business ethics
Social responsibility is defined as, “as the adoption by a business of a strategic focus for
fulfilling the economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities ...by its stakeholders
(Mcalister et al 4). Business institutions should not neglects the ethical values held by each
individual, for there is a supposition that the employer and employee are morally upright in
their running of an organisation. The philosophic debate would lay on the urge that they
should employ ethical values. For example, the employer would not employ a worker who is
not honest and just-fair, but this does not follow with the way the company would make
profits at times, it would simply abuse the consumer or use dishonest means to attract the
consumers (dishonest means to sell a product). The critic to this approach is that the company
can utilise some ethical aspects and yet at the same time avoid some, which seems utilitarian.
There is conflict of interests as humans are defined once by Adam Smith as “self interested”,
which different schools of thought have misinterpreted. It is not always the case that
instituitions or organisations have clash of the “good”, the emphasis on the good is
problematic for both the individual and the organisation. This usually happens when the
values held by an individual diverge with the interests of the organisation, there is need for
Page 9 of 9
what Amartya Sen calls public reasoning which effectively reasonates with everyone being
heard and coming to an reflective equilibrium after consensus (Idea of Justice 324-37).
In conclusion, the most important thing that is need when making a decision is the idea of
listening to both sides before making a decision. Education of the individual and the
organisation is important to both, for the success of making a good decision that favours both
List of Sources
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. Terrence Irwin. Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company,
1985.
Irwin, Terrence. Plato’s Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
McAlister, Debbie T., O. C. Ferrell, and Linda Ferrell. Business and Society: A Strategic
Rawls, John. A Theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.
Sen, Amartya. The Idea of Justice. New York: Penguin Books, 2009.