Introduction
Ethics is a subject that has attracted a lot of attention especially, in the current global setting. The concept is regarded as a set of standards that helps people to distinguish what is right from wrong. The idea generates individuals who impact positively to society, conduct themselves in an accepted way and act in a fair way or uphold certain virtues that are morally accepted. A person who is considered to behave in an ethical manner refrains from some behavior such as murder, rape, assault among others. Moreover, ethical standards have to oblige to some set standards such as the right to life, privacy and free from any form of injury whatsoever, as they are supported by valid reasons as to why society should behave in this particular manner (Duska, 2016).
The problem statement
Tom Kewank is an ex-soldier from the military who served as a long-term sniper for the government agency and was involved in the assassination of opposition leaders. Tom enjoyed his work as a killer, as he was skilled and proved successful on most occasions, but after leaving the job, it is difficult for him to accept living in the American society where morality is a virtue that everyone needs to uphold. One of the reasons Tom does not fit in the American society as per his opinion is because he does not have a chance to perform the assassination tasks accorded to him as a sniper. Moreover, he is 23 years and did not go beyond high school hence does not have credentials to secure a job in the modern American society that requires the college education. The only skill that Tom is well conversant with is his military expertise, and due to the injury he obtained from his last mission, Tom cannot re-enter military and has to cope with the civilian life.
It is worth noting that Tom was involved in a lot of unethical behavior, and he should be made to understand and advised on how to behave in the future so as not to repeat such a case. His duty as a sniper involved killing of innocent people who opposed the government. Nonetheless, irrespective of crime committed, killing is not an ethical behavior. This situation can be justified by the mere fact that everyone has a right to life, and therefore the military action to assassinate people from the opposition was suicidal and unethical. Another case of unethical behavior evidenced by the study is the fact that through his duty, he subjected others to injury, an act that is unacceptable in any society, as people have a right to remain free of any injury.
Although Tom did his best to meet his job responsibilities as assigned by the government agency, it involved a lot of unethical behaviors, which cannot be supported by civilian life that he is currently in. It is the duty of the military to protect people from the danger caused by external intruders who impose an adverse effect to a government, such as terrorist attack or war but not to kill others (Pasztor, 2015). Moreover, ethical decisions require taking a rational action that takes the interest of all the concerned stakeholders in the best interest that meets their needs. From the above case, it is justified to indicate that the act of killing was not rational, as such people could else be captured and taken to a court of law for justice to be delivered.
For the above case study, the most applicable theory is the virtue ethics as it emphasizes on individual's moral character other than involving a person in a given task so as to bring real impact. The theory holds that people should embrace certain virtues which are morally ethical, and based on the situation, involve themselves in actions that they think are rational. Aristotle in his teaching echoed that a virtuous person has to uphold ideal character traits although they are subject to adequate nurturing for them to be stable (Bright et al., 2014). Therefore, Tom is a young person in his early 20s, and should be advised that military is not the only field that he can venture into, but he has a lot of openings in life where he can use his skills. However, to achieve the above objective, it starts with changing his mindset that he can as well fit in the American civil society where morality is upheld. Effective counseling to make Tom understand that everyone has a right to life in that it is unethical to impose injury on someone else is necessary.
A virtuous person does not engage in an unethical behavior because of gaining favor from others, but should otherwise be kind across various situations in life. The theory focuses on developing an individual character in actual society, a feature that makes an individual to have a positive impact on society rather than causing more harm as for the case of Tom (Swanton, 2014). Therefore, if Tom can embrace the principles of the above theory, he will find an essential role to impact positively on society and feel appreciated like in his initial duty as a sniper.
Conclusion
The 21st century has emphasized more on the importance of ethics in business as well as in creating a lasting relation in any society. Behaving in an ethical manner means that a person should conduct his/her actions in a way that is accepted by the community and is in agreement with set standards of ethics. Tom was involved in unethical behavior in his previous job as a sniper but can as well refrain from the same through accepting to abide by the set moral standards of the society. Moreover, the virtue ethics theory suits his case as it focuses on developing his personality to conduct himself in a fair and just way that meets the expectation of the society.
References
Bright, D., Winn, B., &Kanov, J. (2014). Reconsidering Virtue: Differences of Perspective in Virtue Ethics and the Positive Social Sciences. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(4), 445-460.
Duska, R. (2016). Ethics and the Nonfinancial Side of Retirement. Journal of Financial Service Professionals, 70(1), 23-26.
Pasztor, J. (2015). What Is Ethics, Anyway? Journal of Financial Service Professionals, 69(6), 30-32.
Swanton, C. (2014). The notion of the moral: the relation between virtue ethics and virtue epistemology. Philosophical Studies, 171(1), 121-134.
