Introduction:
The article talks about how the different ethical perspectives in the most modern world have lead to different answers to many problems. It seems that everything can be justified using the modern ethical theories as promulgated by John Stuart Mills and Immanuel Kant. It is the approach, or the perspective of looking at the things that leads to a different answer every time. In other words, there is no definitive answer to the ethical dilemmas. For example, the author of the article cites the example of closure of General Motors plan in the United States of America. He states that the closure can be justified by looking at the fiduciary responsibility of the directors of the company. They are required to maximize the wealth of the company by investing in the right place, and by getting rid of the loss making entities. Similarly, the action can also be termed as unethical by looking at the number of people who will lose their jobs, and by looking at the impact of such a decision in terms of economic downturn, and the magnitude of unemployment that this action is going to cause.
Problem Statement:
The major problem using the ethical framework is that all the actions can be justified using ethical frameworks. In this case, how can we distinguish the right actions with the wrong ones?
Literature Review:
There are basically two types of ethical schools of thoughts. One school of thought adopts a utilitarianism approach. This approach calls for the general good of the society. It calls for the benefits for the greatest number of people in the society. On the other hand, there is a deontological school of thought. This school of thought calls for the actions that are based on good intention irrespective of the outcome. Both of these schools of thoughts are very subjective in nature. They can be used by anyone to justify their own point of view in the modern world. (Duska, 2014)
Aristotle provides a solution to the problem. He distinguished the role of an ethicist or an orator in the case of business ethics. He believed that there are two types of orator. There are political orators and forensic orators. Aristotle further clarified that political orators will try to persuade people using their power of persuasion for the purpose of their own political motives. They will not use any relative facts, but they will try to win the argument by appealing to the emotions of the people. Similarly, forensic orators are going to use the evidence and facts to win their arguments. They are going to play by the book, and going to make logical premises and arguments. (Sachs, 2014)
The article also clearly states that the role of rhetoric or oration is extremely important in a business ethics case. Everyone understands what is right, and what is wrong. Even the uneducated person in the society understands and can distinguish the right from the wrong or good from bad. For example, uneducated people may not understand the motives behind the dumping of milk or other food items, but they will surely know that this action is wrong as it is wasting an important resource of the society. (Velasquez, 2014)
Discussion:
The article is spot on in indicating the role of rhetoric and oration in business ethics. Since, there are so many different perspectives that are being used in the post modern world, it has become very easy for the person to choose the perspective of his own choice while making the decision. The field has become so subjective, that there are no rights and wrongs. It is the perspective that matters. Although, Aristotle elevates the importance of using the right orator and the use of rhetoric, he fails to identify that even though such actions would be persuasive, but they will not be truly ethical. Ethics are not aesthetics and they should not change with one’s own views. Instead, they should be strict rules that guide the businesses in to making the right decisions at the right time. Only this will make the businesses more compliant, and will encourage them to undertake those actions that are reflective of true goodness for the society irrespective of the ethical perspective of the person making the decision. Only this way the true ethical behavior will prevail in the business world, and in the society.
Conclusion:
The article was very informative as to how the role of business ethics has changed over the years. It is nothing more than the use of rhetoric, oration, and persuasion of people. It is no longer about doing the right thing, but doing the things that are beneficial for the company, and the person making the decisions, and then justifying them by using rhetoric, and appealing to the emotions of ordinary masses. There is a need of legislation to be done in this field, in order to further improve the decision making in this regards, and to make sure that the actions taken by the company are not only for their own good, but they should be done by looking at the consequences of these actions.
References
Duska, R. (2014). Why Business Ethics Needs Rhetoric: An Aristotelian Perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(1), 119-134.
Sachs, J. (2014). Aristotle: Ethics. An Internet Encyclopedia Of Ethics, 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-eth/
Velasquez, M. (2012). Business ethics. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson.
