Page 1 of 9

Aristotle, Plato and Socrates dealt with ethics providing a set of

principles of human conduct and values. An act is suitable if and
only if it promotes an individual's long term and produces the
greatest balance of good over bad for everyone affected. Which
behaviours are ethical and which are unethical? Kant argued that
only good deeds matter- the nature of the act should be judged,
not its outcome. Is there a difference between ethical behaviour
for individuals and the ethical behaviour for an organisation?
What is the basis for an action to be considered as ethical or
unethical? Are universally accepted ethical principles applicable
to all human actions? Are there ethical behaviours of different
grade and value? Relate these questions to the complexity of
ethics at the work place. 20 marks.

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

shall concentrate mostly on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics as an example of Virtue School,

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

school as approaches to supplement the inadequacies within business institutions without a

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

time seeking justice.

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

individual and organisation (Mcalister et al 2-32).

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

highlight the two schools-virtue and deontology.

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

that virtue (arête) is important to establish what is reasonable (Nicomachean Ethics: NE

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

collective or demos, hence the idea of philosopher-king by his student, Plato.

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

controversial in the paragraphs to come (Mcalister et al 96-101, 134-37). Importance of these

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

good. In this situation there is need for justice.

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

contradicts the “common good” is caused by pleonexia-greed (NE 1129a32). For an

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

argument propounded in Nicomachean Ethics, is that happiness, virtue (justice and

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

Immanuel Kant who came much later.

Immanuel Kant argued that actions arise from reason and freedom subtly duty, this he

invasively describes in “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals.” Kant differentiates

between two types of actions – autonomous and heteronomous (Foundations of the

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

categorical imperative (Categorical Imperative abbreviated as CI) permeates all aspects of

his ethics, for the CI is imposed by reason autonomously not heteronomously. Kant’s CI

influenced the contemporary ethical formalism(Mcalister et al 114). For example, it is not

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

without universalism there is relativism of actions which fosters utilitarianism ethics in

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

not the means to an end as proposed by utilitarian ethics.

Social responsibility is a single component that is essential in the approach of business ethics

or values, and it asserts to accomplish the political standards of a business organisation.

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

the individual and the organisation.

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.

Kant, Immanuel. Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals: And What is Enlightenment.

Trans. Lewis White Beck. New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1959.

McAlister, Debbie T., O. C. Ferrell, and Linda Ferrell. Business and Society: A Strategic

Approach to Social Responsibility. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005.

Rawls, John. A Theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.

Sen, Amartya. The Idea of Justice. New York: Penguin Books, 2009.

Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopfc, 1999.