Virtue Ethics
The essence of Virtue Ethics is based in its antiquity and the fact that almost all ancient civilizations having endorsed some form of this principle. This is one form of Ethics that can directly be applied to professional and managerial situations. The reason for this is the ‘character-based’ nature of Virtue Ethics, wherein one evaluates an action in terms of specific ethical goals. In a sense, Virtue Ethics answers questions for managers better as compared to the Teleological or Deontological Ethical thoughts that are more consequence or duty based respectively. This essay would proceed to describe Virtue Ethics and then evaluate certain Cases, while applying Virtue Ethics to those particular cases to examine the manner in which those particular subjects should have behaved.
As mentioned, Virtue Ethics is the ethical thought that emphasizes the virtue of mind and a person’s character. Since the nature of Virtue Ethics is character based, one sees that the scope of this particular ethical thought is broad and runs from Aristotle to Kant to even The Buddha. In terms of Geography too, the school of Virtue Ethics runs across cultures from ancient Western civilization to ancient India and China. Further, new schools of thought, particularly in the world of corporate ethics, also integrate Virtue Ethics as an integral part of its process and understanding. The easiest to apply amongst these is the Nicomachean Ethics that highlights the deficiency and excess of various human qualities with the Mean of these qualities to represent the Virtues. One could think of this as the Moral Mean (very different from the Arithmetic Mean which can be easily calculated). Therefore, as per Aristotle, a person who behaved or possessed qualities that was in moderation without behaving in a manner that displayed an excess or deficiency was a person who displayed Virtue and could be called virtuous.
This essay will now proceed to examine the cases from the point of view of Virtue Ethics.
This particular case involves a clutch of top US Universities such as Harvard, Stanford and others that used the Apply Yourself software for admitting students into their business programs. In midst of the application process, a few applicants learnt of a glitch in the software that would allow them to access the restricted page containing the results. At least two hundred applicants reportedly accessed the results in the nine hours that it took specialists to plug the security gap. The response to this was equally quick – Harvard rejected about 119 of its applicants who accessed this page, while MIT, Carnegie Mellon and others followed suit. No one knows if Duke and Dartmouth took a similar action, but Stanford invited the applicants to write an essay in order to provide an explanation for their actions. The students themselves endeavored to defend their actions stating that in most cases a curious spouse or parent were responsible for this particular action. In some cases, critics too spoke out against the actions of Harvard, while Harvard itself criticized the actions of the applicants as unethical and morally wrong. Harvard asserted that they did not want such students in their business programs for ethical reasons.
If one applies Virtue Ethics to this situation, one sees that all the stakeholders in the situation transgressed their boundaries to various extents. Firstly, the applicants who attempted to view their results should have known that their act was reckless and, supposedly, as illegal as accessing a document that they should otherwise not be allowed to view. By attempting to view the results, the said applicants displayed a high level of recklessness and irresponsible behavior – both of which tend to be on the excess side of Virtue Ethics. One could also say that the applicants displayed a high level of impatience as against the Virtue of Patience. Thus, the applicants, at least in principle, have violated the principles of Virtue Ethics.
As for Harvard, while most critics seemed to be extremely critical of their behavior, it seemed to display a sense of Justice. However, if one views the situation their method of judgment should have had a little more good sense. For instance, Stanford effectively asked the erring applicants to explain themselves through an essay and ultimately rejected them. On the other hand, Harvard did so almost immediately and in a knee jerk reaction without allowing the students to explain themselves. If one compares the responses, one sees that the behavior of Stanford tends a little more towards Justice (and hence Virtue) as compared to that of Harvard. In essence, while the action of rejecting the applicants was right, the manner of performing the same was wrong. Also, the intermediary ‘Apply Yourself’ is also a violator of Virtue Ethics since it displayed a deficiency in its duties of protecting the necessary information, thus leading to a lot of damage.
This case deals with a situation where in a group of Westerners including the author of that article comes across a Sadhu (a pilgrim or a Hindu holy man) who is naked in the biting cold. They collectively give the sadhu their outer layer of warm clothing. The author chose to proceed ahead for personal reasons rather than ensure the safety of the Sadhu. One of the other persons on the expedition chose to stay with the Sadhu and eventually ensured that the Sherpas transported the Sadhu to a spot in the Sun where they left him with clothing and food. The author additionally puts forth various arguments that examines their action, but does not examine his action using Virtue Ethics. The argument here was that if these Western tourists did the right thing by leaving the Sadhu to survive on his own (or die). Should these tourists have changed their plans in order to ensure that the Sadhu would survive? This is especially since no one really knew if the Sadhu lived after that, although the Japanese camp had reported seeing him throwing stones at their dog.
As per Virtue Ethics, these Western tourists displayed a marked deficiency of both judgment and apathy in the manner in which they behaved towards the Sadhu. In the first place, these tourists, lacked a sense of judgment that led them to behave the way they did. This was coupled with a complete lack of courtesy towards a fellow human combined with a certain recklessness that endangered a human life. Either ways, these trekkers from the West behaved with a certain sense of deficiency when it came to judgment and apathy. They also displayed a sense of excess when it came to their reckless behavior. When the situation called they did not display a single virtue as mandated by Virtue Ethics. Ideally, Virtue Ethics would have certainly required them to display courage and an exemplary sense of judgment by taking the Sadhu to safety and ensuring his safety. By not doing so, these people violated the rules of Virtue Ethics.
The Challenger Spacecraft explosion of 1986 that killed seven astronauts turned out to be an accident that was the product of sheer negligence. The engineers (employees of Thiokol – the company that made the booster rockets) who designed the spacecraft were aware that the O rings that sealed the booster rocket joints did not function as well under low temperatures. Some Thiokol employees, particularly Roger Boisjoly, raised their concerns. Neither NASA nor Thiokol bothered to address the problem. Even the evening before the launch Boisjoly and his colleagues opposed the launch due to the low temperatures. However, managers in Thiokol overruled their concerns at the insistence of NASA and went ahead with the launch. After the accident, initially Boisjoly was placed on the investigation team but when he testified the truth before the Rogers Commission that was investigating this accident, he was isolated from NASA and his position was changed. Although, Boisjoly was later given his job back, a couple of months later he was almost eased out of NASA.
This is a classic example where Boijoly and his colleagues displayed commendable Courage and Honesty. They tried their level best to ensure that the launch did not go through. But their voices were stifled by the larger entities, namely Thiokol and NASA. Both these entities displayed a complete lack of Sense, Judgment and a complete lack of apathy in handling this situation. In terms of Virtue Ethics, Boijoly and his colleagues emerge as the virtuous persons whose voices were stifled by entities that were blatant violators of Virtue Ethics (at least so far as this incident was concerned).
If NASA and Thiokol would have followed Virtue Ethics, in the first place, they would have listened to Boijoly and his colleagues. They would not have gone ahead with the launch which would not have resulted in the death of these astronauts. Even in the face of the accident, NASA should have acted courageously and admitted their mistake since that would have placed them in an ethically advantageous spot. However, they chose to punish the employees who blew the whistle. It becomes apparent that some of our institutions really need to act more ethically in their practices in order to conform to the rules of Virtue Ethics.
The Enron case was an apt example of the manner in which a concerted effort by many parties resulted in an unmitigated disaster. In 2002, Enron which was one of the largest energy traders in the world slipped into Chapter 11 with a lot of disgrace and ignominy surrounding the fall. The result was the loss of jobs and retirement benefits for a host of mid-level employees as a result of an unethical behavior perpetrated by their bosses and others. The main perpetrators of this incident would be the accountants and top executives within Enron who carried out a large scale accountancy fraud that brought the company down. However, a fraud of such massive proportions could not be carried out by just two parties. It was later found internally that Investment Bankers, The Board, and even the Audit Committee were responsible for this aiding and abetting this fraud to various degrees. But this whole line of accused did not just end here. Even external parties had a role to play in the downfall of Enron. For instance, the Rating Agencies continued giving high debt ratings to Enron despite knowing that the company was falling into a trap, Financial Analysts continued recommending the Enron stock to their clients even after the fraud came out in the open, and, lastly, even mainstream banks helped create structures within the company so as to mask the debt that Enron carried on its books. Almost everyone was involved in his massive fraud only to make a quick buck out of the situation.
This case is a typical example of most minor ethical violation that one comes across on a day to day basis – something we tend to ignore at times depending on the situation. Wilson Mutambara was a typical boy who grew up in slums outside Stanley – the capital of Rambia. After securing an American education through sheer hard work and grit, he ended up with a job in NewCom. Since the neighborhoods in Stanley were sub-par as per Western standards, the company used to provide a $2000 allowance towards securing housing in a place that was safe. To claim this allowance, the employee had to only submit a rent receipt to that effect. Mutambara started submitting similar receipts for the housing allowance, although he continued living with his relatives in the Old part of town that were largely a slum area. A colleague Dale Garman found this out and reported the matter to Wilson’s supervisor Barbara. When she confronted him on this issue, Wilson became distraught and attempted to justify his act by putting forth various arguments. When these arguments did not cut ice, he attempted to portray to Barbara that he was under pressure (being a local) to care for his family and pay their bills.
Wilson is clearly in contravention of Virtue Ethics. His behavior displays a sheer lack of integrity, a total disregard for maintaining his company’s image and a completely dishonest explanation when confronted by his supervisor. It also displays an excessively greedy behavior coupled with a sense of cowardice since he doesn’t want to take ownership of his act but prefers to say that everyone around him does the same and that his act is acceptable in Rambia. In the first place, Wilson should not have taken the allowance. If he intended to claim the allowance, he should have put it to proper use. His arguments are merely diversions to take the attention of his supervisor from the topic. Wilson has displayed a complete lack of character and professionalism, thus also violating the principles of Virtue Ethics.
The Learnings and Conclusions
Each of these cases has given me an insight into the manner in which one must conduct oneself in various situations. On applying Virtue Ethics to the scenario, it has given me an understanding that one must avoid being deficient and, at the same time, must not display an excess of any of the qualities. Anything that is too little or too much is enough to land oneself in trouble as is apparent from the learning in each of the cases. When one is confronted with a situation, Virtue always lies in taking an equipoised stand towards it and resolving it with equanimity and grace. When one acts in such a manner, the good results tend to follow since such a behavior is in line with the principle of Virtue Ethics. Anything else is a recipe for disaster and can lead one to a vortex of problems as is apparent from the cases analyzed above.
In essence, whether one follows Nicomachean Ethics or the Middle Way of the Buddha, it becomes imperative on all of us as managers or actors in the Corporate world to avoid resorting to either excesses or deficiencies in one’s personal qualities. This has become all the more essential in the face of corporate scandals and other such ethical downturns. Since companies are ultimately comprised of individuals, the application of Virtue Ethics to individual behavior would then result in the elimination of such scandals and would bestow public trust in our private and public institutions, which is the hallmark of a strong Society.
