Running head: ETHICS

Ethics Gregory Solomon ETH/316 April 30, 2012 Karen Harvey

ETHICS

Ethics To define ethics a person would have to take into account the distinct characteristics of a groups culture and history. The terms good, bad, right, wrong, and moral would also need a definition to complete any attempt at a specific definition of ethics. In general, people often refer to a standard of behavior that guides humans in how to act in a given situation. Ethical standards are varied over individual cultures and are difficult to assign because of how a person bases his or her ethical standards. According to a study by Santa Clara University, identifying what ethics is not creates a simpler path to embracing an understanding of ethics. Ethics is not feelings, religion, law, culturally accepted norms, nor is it science (2009). The purpose of this essay is to compare the virtue theory, utilitarianism, and deontological ethics and describe how each addresses morality and ethics. Additionally, a brief illustration of personal experiences with virtue, values, and moral concepts and how they relate to one of the aforementioned theories will be added for clarity. Ethical standards, as believed by many, are based on a variety of sources. Common sources or theories include utilitarianism, virtue, and deontological. These theories act as a directive for moral behaviors and awareness while drawing attention to how they are applied. Virtue ethics presupposes that a person will pursue excellence and prompt others to pursue it as well. Akin to the teachings of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, virtue is an implication of strong moral character and produces sound judgment in solving moral problems (Boylan, 2009). Because humans are social beings, the ethical application of morals is found within the context of a given society. In a similar fashion, utilitarianism dictates that people act in a manner that provides for the greater good of society. Note that this theory is not bound by doing the greatest good for the

ETHICS

greatest number of people. Because morality is not an impersonal calculation of mathematics, it is difficult to assess the good and relies heavily on the judgment previously mentioned. If a person can foresee the consequences of an endeavor, utilitarianism systematizes and makes explicit the things people generally do in moral thinking. According to DeGeorge (2006), deontological ethics is in direct opposition to the utilitarian claim that the morality of an action is dependent on its outcome. Deontological ethics, also referred to as duty ethics, asserts that it is the explicit duty of a person to strive to do what is morally right regardless of the consequences of that action. Often used synonymously, Kantian ethics exploit the duty ethic as one based on universal rules, such as the categorical imperative Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (Cheeseman, 2010, p. 21). Supported by Judeo-Christian morality rules, the deontological theory is a self-imposed view of reasoning and again beckons to the value of virtue in translating actions or judgment thereof. As a manager within a California realty company, I was tasked with determining whether or not to close an unprofitable office in the rural area of the Mojave Desert. Using the utilitarian approach, the benefit to the company from the office closure was weighed against the benefit to the employees, their families, and the community of it remaining operational. As a manager, I practice the value of virtue and endeavor to use good judgment in daily decision-making. The moral nuances of this situation compelled me to weigh the competing moral claims of duty to the company and good for society. The decision pulled at my belief of abiding by moral rules necessary for people to live harmoniously and the moral minimum. Virtue requires practice in the quest for excellence in moral and ethical performance for the benefit to society. This essay compared the virtue theory, utilitarianism, and deontological ethics and described how each addresses morality and ethics. Additionally, a brief illustration of

ETHICS

personal experiences with virtue, values, and moral concepts and how they related to one of the aforementioned theories was added for clarity.

ETHICS

References Boylan, M. (2009). Basic ethics: Basic ethics in action (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall. Cheeseman, H. R. (2010). The legal environment of business and online commerce (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall. DeGeorge, R. T. (2006). Business ethics (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall. Santa Clara University. (2009). Framework for thinking ethically. Retrieved from http://www.santaclara.edu