Words: 718
The writer here talks about a man named Kant who lived in the 18th Century and is best known for defending a version of the “respect for persons” principle which implies that any business practice that puts money on a par with people is immoral or unethical. Kant argued that the highest good was the goodwill. To act from a good will is to act from duty. Thus it is the intention behind an action rather than its consequences that makes that action good.
The article goes on to focus on some Of the implications Of Cant’s three formulations of the fundamentals of ethics. Cant’s first formulation was that he believed every action has a maxim, we are to ask what would happen if the principle (maxim) of the action were a universal law. Would a world where everyone acted on that principle be possible? Kant uses an example where he focuses on the concept of lying promises, when adopted as a principle by everyone it is incoherent.
The second formulation he focused on was to treat humanity in a person as an end and not for means rely and lastly he believes that organizations are composed of persons and given the nature of persons, organizational structures must treat the humanity in persons with dignity and respect. Kantian ethics sure had limitations, Kant had nothing to say about environmental ethics , lack of understanding on animal suffering and the biggest challenge Kantian ethics being too demanding yet Kant moral philosophy has rich implications for business practice.
Corporate Roles, Personal Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach to Business Ethics Aristotle is a philosopher who is best known for the emphasis on the litigation of virtues(excellence). He had so much to say about the ethics of exchange and so the author goes on to call him the first (known) business ethicist. Aristotle distinguished TV’0 different senses of economics one of them called ‘economics” or household management which he thought was essential to the working of any even modestly complex society and the other called “charismatic” which is known as trade for profit.
Aristotle declared that the latter activity wholly devoid of virtue and called those who engaged in such selfish practices “parasites”. He believed that all trade was kind of exploitation. An Aristotelian approach to business ethics consists of half a dozen dimensions Of virtue ethics and those six considerations make up the framework of virtue ethics in business and the author calls them Community, excellence, role identity, holism, integrity and judgment.
The bottom line of Aristotelian approach to business ethics is that we have to get away from both traditional individualistic ethics and “bottom line” thinking( it is serious considerations of the attitudes, behaviors, concepts, approaches and actions hat business owners must embrace if they are to survive and flourish in uncertain times. Therefore we can say that Aristotelian approach to business ethics is perhaps just another way of saying that people come before profits.
MAHAYANA-01 Utilitarianism and Business Ethics In this article, the author presents and supports a utilitarian approach to business ethics. Utilitarianism is already widely used as a business ethic approach. Utilitarianism provides a guiding framework of decision making aligned for the benefit of society which helps direct business toward more ethical behavior. The author brings in the views of two great philosophers, Jeremy Beneath and John Stuart mill.
Bantam’s utilitarian ethics was based on people agreeing on the principle greatest happiness The author believes that the main cause of the neglect of the utilitarian approach is because of misguided criticisms. Here, the author defends utilitarianism as a basis for business ethics against many criticisms found in the business ethics literature, showing that a business ethics approach relying on John Stuart
Mill’s utilitarianism supports principles like justice, is not favored against the minority, and is more reasonable than other views such as a Kantian view when dealing with workers and making other decisions in business. The author also explains utilitarian moral motivation and use satisfying theory to attempt to defend utilitarian business ethics from questions raised regarding utilitarian study of change. It is often said that business is ‘utilitarian’ in nature.