Category: Virtue Ethics

For my exhibition, I will study normative Virtue Ethics because I’m interested in exploring how it could compare along a variety of contrasting philosophies. Virtue Ethics advises decision choice based on doing what is right [at the right time], rather than following a set of rules that might lead to the opposite solution in a situation. It promotes character traits that come from a “virtuous person”, and is fostered by and dependent on one’s character to bring about good consequences.

A virtuous (prudent; sensible in action and thought) person is not simply a trustworthy, faithful, kind and generous person, it is one who is well balanced and within the mean [one that knows what to do and say, how to act at the correct time] (Thesaurus). A virtuous person acknowledges many things before taking action; some of which are “emotions, emotional reactions, choices, values, desires, perceptions, attitudes, interests, expectations, and sensibilities” (Czarene). Put simply, “if we can just focus on being good people, the right actions will follow through effortlessly” (Green). “Based on our reasoning and learning, our virtue [virtuous character] is supposed to make good choices in relation to our passion [bodily emotions and feelings that include pleasure and pain]” (Williams).

The Greek god Aristotle (founding father of Virtue Ethics) taught that virtue is found at the mean between two vices [sins, or undesirable traits] and should be applied at the mean [don’t be too virtuous or not virtuous enough]. For example, a virtuous person is brave when facing a bully, but not over enthusiastic or too cowardly [two vices]. A virtuous person should also not go to extremes or be too honest that will cause the dilemma to be his/ her fault. For example, a virtuous father would not tell his adopted ten year old son he’s not adopted to avoid hurt feelings. The strength of this system is that it emphasizes internal moral practice within the person that beneficially builds up over time, it’s easy to understand, and ponders the bigger picture rather than focus on details that might not work in every situation. Its weakness is that it presents the needed character’s development and understandable characteristics while not offering exact guidance or steps on how it could be achieved to later help fix a dilemma. “Unlike deontological (duty) and teleological (consequences) theories, theories of Virtue Ethics (normative) do not aim to identify universal principles that can be applied in any moral situation” (Idikwu). Instead, Virtue Ethics promotes action based on foundation questions or principles: How should I live? What is the good life? What are proper family and social values? V.E also believes that Eudemonia (concept of good and happiness) is the end goal and purpose behind every action one takes, for their own good and sake.

Description and Summary of an Ethical Dilemma

A relevant dilemma for Virtue Ethics is Abortion; the state of terminating an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. When a woman gets pregnant, she has three choices: Give birth and keep the baby, give birth and lend the baby to be adopted, or end the pregnancy medically or surgically to remove the baby from the uterus. There’s constantly been social conflict over what choice is right for mothers who do not want or whom cannot afford to have a child. There are pro-life and pro-choice sides, none of which have been universially accepted or suspended. This divise debate brings us to question if Abortion is morally and ethically right and “what is the right thing to do?”. A Virtue Ethicist would offer great moral consideration, taking account of the fetus as a real person, which isn’t exactly the case when it comes to stating facts that are equal between the two sides. Would a real virtious person consider abortion murder, or the right thing to do if a woman’s right to choice comes into picture? If Eudaimonia (happiness) is ultimately the end result of a virtuous act, is it having the baby and raising it? Giving it up for adoption, or it’s termination? Which side is to be considered—the fetus? The mother? The father? Society? The ethical system of Virtue Ethics leaves obscurity when it comes to answering this incontrovertibly complicated issue. Should a Virtue Ethics even be considered as a system to fix this dilemma?

Description of Objects and the Relation to the Exhibition

For my exhibition, I have chosen an image of a protest that happened at Georgia State Capitol’s downtown against a ban of abortion (HB 481) and a graphic cartoon from 1988 by Pro-Life cartoonist Chuck Asay. The image of a protest that happened on May 28, 2019 displays the dissatisfaction of people who beleieve “when you [outlaw] abortion it does not stop abortion, it stops safe and legal abortion. Bans like these do not protect lives, they destroy them” (Bakhitari). The cartoon displays a plan by editorial workers for the Colorado Springs Gazette to promote and campaign for pro-life choices by comparing them to previous major movements that happened in history (ultimatley backfired; called racist and inappropriate). I chose these pictures in relation to exhibition of Virtue Ethics, as they show how both sides could be morally valid and justified by a virtuous person and in relation to major Virtue Ethics principles that string to the fundamental questions of: How should I live? What is the good life? What are proper family and social values?

Conclusion

Virtue Ethics is certainly spontaneous. It states a concluding solution standard of Eudaimonia by a mean of virtuous action [than undesired vice] with no concrete answer to certain questions that would excessively help in the real world. I’m left to think for myself how everything is supposed to fall at a clear angle between two vices, and why characteristics that are generally known to be “good”, could not be, even when beneficial in excess. How could one choose when choices of possibly good virtues conflict? Could it really be possible that everything set stone be morally just, if applied by a virtuous person? My exploration of this ethical system and my chosen objects help broaden my perspective and deeper understanding of why, universally, would these statements be socially accepted as “ethical systems” when there are multiple clear areas of shade.

The philosophical perspective of virtue ethics, specifically, eudaimonistic virtue ethics stipulates that man is innately virtuous. Virtuous traits are those of robust quality, such as kindness, generosity, and honesty – to name just a few; these are foundational traits that concern virtue ethics and lead to predictably good behavior. They are derived from inherent internal tendencies, which at first must be trained through natural experience. This is to say, the individual must learn what it is to be virtuous between two vices: deficiency and excess; for example, the distinction between cowardice and recklessness with the virtuous position being a point of courage, and the range between stinginess and prodigality to locate generosity.This process is determined by man’s distinctive function to reason: recognizing where virtue is located on a spectrum between deficiency and excess in a given situation. Initially this is deliberate for the individual, however, will eventually occur naturally as the individual experiences it for themselves – questioning how a virtuous man may react in a given situation, and engaging in discourse pertaining to moral ethics. Eudiamonsitic virtue ethics asserts that human beings have a natural inclination towards the pursuit of virtue; a desire to be virtuous – the same desire a plant or animal has to pursue ends of reproduction, humans pursue ends of virtue – this is described as eudaimonia.

Eudaimonia, as asserted by Aristotle is the pinnacle of humanity: the best kind of life lived is one which is an end in itself and a means to live by and fare well. This contends the question of whether or not there are good instrumental grounds for adopting a commitment to ethics. Ethics, as previously mentioned are recognized as the actions taken by individuals which manifest their virtue; such as, telling people the truth when there is sufficient reason to do so, or being generous when you can to those who are in need of it most. Eudaimonism bases virtues in the independent flourishment of the individual, pursuing eudaimonism through the means of virtue ethics; which requires that humans perform their distinctive function well; reason well, or to the best ability of the individual – this is what Aristotle perceives as morality: being the best one can personally be, honing in on strengths while continuously working on your weaknesses in pursuit of Eudaimonia.

That being said, eudaimonia is for the sake of itself, and not a means to seek alternative ends; but an end in itself. This brings us back to the initially contention, if eudaimonia is for the sake of itself, and the intention of the pursuit overall, the instrumental value that arises from the ethics of the pursuing eudaimonia are no longer a relevant factor to consider when distinguishing whether an individual is engaging in particular action due to instrumental or intrinsic value.

Ethics Case Study Assignment

Appendix A states the chosen dilemma whereby a data analyst for a major casino has been faced with an ethical dilemma in a business-related situation where he must decide the most ethical choice. This is considered an ethical dilemma as a situational conflict emerges between two possible moral imperatives by which adherence to one transgresses another moral principle. Which in this case, Blair, has two difficult choices to make, whether to report to the management team about his discovery on Sam’s gambling bets or to warn Sam, stop making gambling bets. Blair would be ethically correct to report to the management, however, under both circumstances, Blair will have to admit that he violated the company’s information technology regulations by acting unethically during the process. Blair’s choice may eventually be affected by the organisation’s moral values, which in this situation is conformity. This may influence his decision-making as he is expected to be ethical by complying with the company’s norms and guidelines. Acting otherwise would be a violation to the code of conduct. In order to determine the ethical decision, it is necessary to apply three ethical frameworks: Utilitarianism, Kantian and Virtue Ethics.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical framework that provides guidelines for the decision-maker to make the most ethical choice that will maximize the overall good and will please the most stakeholders (Ethics Unwrapped, 2019). A number of stakeholders are involved in this situation. These stakeholders’ outcomes must be examined alongside the consequences that it will inflict on them in order to formulate the final decision. The main stakeholders include: Blair, Sam, the management team, and other employees.

1. Blair:

Blair is faced with the ethical dilemma; he can either report to the management team regarding Sam’s activities or warn her about her gambling for which he will run the risk of the management team finding out directly. The ethical decision Blair will have to make should maximise net happiness for all stakeholders. The positive consequences from this decision is he would be fulfilling his obligated duties in the best interest of the company and would increase trust with the management team. While simultaneously resulting in a negative consequence as he will admit to his misbehaviour and will break the trust between Sam and, potentially, the other colleagues.

However, by warning Sam, may seem like the easier option but there are uncertainties such as whether both Sam and the management team becoming aware of the situation and severe consequences may be issued. Blair is morally obliged to take the moral action, as it is deemed immoral to do otherwise.

2. Sam

In Sam’s situation, she will experience an increase in pleasure from partaking in activities that excites her, subsequently she will experience a reduction in happiness as she has shown disobedience to the company’s policy. Hence, the overall net happiness would decrease. As a result of this dilemma, Sam would be the least unhappy stakeholder involved. By hiding the misconduct, Sam’s activities would be considered immorally wrong. Additionally, by continuing her activities would be considered immorally wrong as it is against the policy.

However, if Sam was to tell the truth to the management team about her misconduct, there is a possibility that the management team might present a more lenient punishment as they might recognise Sam’s initiative and forgive her, which would increase happiness. Ultimately, this is the morally right choice.

3. Management Team

For the management team to find out that their employees have breached a code of conduct would cause a decrease in net happiness. This would arise questioning within the management team as to whether only one employee has misconducted or more, hence, would begin to sense of distrust between their employees. Ultimately, would cause a decrease in net happiness. A positive consequence would be that the policy placed by the management team for the employees is relevant and that the management team know that most of the employees abide by the rules. A negative consequence may be that the rules placed is not firm enough which allows the employees to hide their activities.

4. Other Employees

If Blair decides to report Sam’s misconduct to the management team, they will become aware and might praise Blair for doing the morally right thing. This will improve the relationship between Blair and the other employees, which will increase overall happiness, hence, morally right.

Assuming the other employees like Sam as their colleague they might not want to report her to the management team and to keep it as much of a secret as possible.

Bentham’s approach consists of quantifying the increases and decreases in pleasure regarding each stakeholder examined above. A possible summary is listed in Table 1: Utility for Each Stakeholder with the units of happiness being +10 as being the most happy and -10 as being the most unhappy.

Table 1: Utility for Each Stakeholder

Stakeholder

Situation 1 (Reporting Situation to Management)

Increase/decrease

Situation 2 (Not reporting Situation to Management)

Increase/decrease

Blair

10

Increase

3

Increase

Sam

-10

Decrease

10

Increase

Management Team

7

Increase

-10

Decrease

Employees

N/A

-5

Decrease

TOTAL NET PLEASURE

7

Increase

-2

Decrease

By following Bentham’s felicific calculus approach, the most ethical decision can be made. This is evident in Table 1: Utility for Each Stakeholder. If Blair decides to report Sam regarding her making gambling bets to the management team will result in more positive consequence overall. From a utilitarian perspective, Blair should tell the management team as this option yields the greatest net happiness. Doing otherwise will be considered ethically wrong.

Kantian Ethics

Kantian Ethics is a framework that is derived from Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which is a rule that holds true in all situations. Under Kant’s Categorical Imperative, there are two formulations that need to be tested – Formulation One (Universal Acceptability) and Formulation Two (Respect)

Kant’s first formulation states that you should; ‘Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law’ (Stanford, 2016). Formulation Two (Respect) states that we must ‘treat humanity not simply as a means to our ends’. Ultimately, Kantian Ethics utilises a formula, whereby a maxim is described and compared with society’s moral beliefs.

Maxim

As the person who breached the IT’s code of conduct, Blair has the responsibility to report his findings to the management team as it is an expectation of organisation’s code of conduct.

Universal Acceptability

The maxim can be universalised as follows: “Everyone will report findings on misconduct throughout their workplace as a means of following company’s policy. Once universalised, there is evidence of ‘contradiction in will’ as by complying will the one of the company’s policy will breach another. This is a ‘contradiction in will’ as no one would want to be in this situation – both the person responsible for reporting and the one who misbehaved.

There also is contradiction in conception evident because if everyone reports to the management team about other employee’s Which is ethically wrong to do so.

Thus, the maxim fails the first test of Universal Acceptability as it creates a contradiction.

Respect

According to the second formulation of the categorical imperative, the maxim breaches the formulation of respect. This is by disregarding the company’s policy in order to gain benefit for oneself is, essentially, using them as a means to the person’s own advantage while at the same time is disrespectful toward the other employees as it is evading their privacy. Therefore, the maxim fails the test of respect.

In conclusion, under Kantian Ethics, it would be unethical to proceed with the course of action as the maxim creates a contradiction in conception and will, which violates the first formulation and does not meet the requirements for the second formulation.

Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics is developed by Aristotle and other philosophers which emphasise the role of a character (Athanassoulis, n.d.) By exploring Aristotle’s four key aspects: Functions, goals and the good, Flourishing, the virtues and developing virtues – one’s character can be examined.

Blair’s function/goal as an employee for a major casino is to fulfil his obligations as a data analyst. Which is interpreting and analysing data and turning it into information that can be used to improve the business. As Blair is an employee of the casino, there are certain virtues/excellences that he would need to have acquired. These virtues come under intellectual and character-based. In order to flourish, these virtues must be developed.

An example of intellectual virtues required to be a good employee is knowledge and practical wisdom. It is important that one has the quality of having experience, knowledge and good judgment in order to work efficiently by oneself and with other employees. Additionally, with this virtue, it allows the person to identify an appropriate course of action and to act accordingly to different situations. A crucial character-based virtue required would be integrity. Some other virtues may include trustworthiness and responsibility. That is, abiding to regulations and being accountable for one’s actions.

These virtues have been developed throughout Blair’s life. However, by not reporting Sam to the management team, Blair would go against his integrity as he is being dishonest, consequently, untrustworthiness is evident by the management team as Sam’s gambling activity is a breach of policy. Ultimately, this prevents Blair from flourishing.

Conclusion/Recommendation

In conclusion, the most ethical decision for Blair would be to report his findings on Sam’s forbidden activities to the management team. Under Utilitarianism analysis, this decision would result in the greatest happiness. Blair’s decision would not be in the best interest of himself but for the company. According to the Virtue Ethics analysis, not reporting Sam to the management team would contravene Blair’s integrity and honesty and would fail to meet company’s policy. It would cause Blair to feel dishonest and untrustworthy and possibly, guilt. By examining the virtues of a person, it can be used to describe what a virtuous person intends to do during situations in the real world. The choice the person makes depends on their intellectual and character-based virtues. The decision an individual makes depends if the person is ethical or unethical.

Appendix A

Dilemma 1: The data analyst

Blair, a data analyst for a major casino, is working after normal business hours to finish an important project. He realised that he is missing data that had been sent to his co-worker Sam. Blair and Sam are also friends. In their spare time they play tennis together.

Blair had inadvertently observed Sam typing her password several days ago and decided to log into Sam’s computer and resend the data to himself. Upon doing so, Blair sees an open email regarding gambling bets Sam placed over the last several days with a local sports bookmaker. All employees of the casino are forbidden to engage in gambling activities to avoid any hint of conflict of interest.

Blair knows he should report this but would have to admit to violating the company’s information technology regulations by logging into Sam’s computer. If he warns Sam to stop her betting, he would also have to reveal the source of his information.

From an ethical perspective, what would you recommend Blair do in this situation?

References

1. Utilitarianism – Ethics Unwrapped. (2019). Retrieved 20 August 2019, from https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/utilitarianism
2. Kant’s Moral Philosophy. (2004). Retrieved 20 August 2019, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
3. Athanassoulis, n. Virtue Ethics. Retrieved 20 August 2019, from https://www.iep.utm.edu/virtue/

In this scenario (refer to appendix), the company you are working for is signing a multi-million-dollar contract to share customers’ private information with a third party without their knowledge. As a result, you are posed with the issue of whether you should leak the details of this arrangement to the press or keep your inside knowledge to yourself. This is considered an ethical dilemma as it may conflict with your own personal beliefs. You may believe that the company must act with honesty and remain trustworthy with the customers’ information; however, this new arrangement goes against your moral principles as you become suspicious of the handling and proper use of the data.

Ethical issues in business can be examined at three different levels: the individual, organisational and systemic. There are several aspects of organisations that can have an impact on individual ethical behaviour and can make this decision more difficult. This includes factors such as:

• Organisational norms –Cottonworths’ mission statement may be more concerned with making large profits which this contract will be able to achieve.
• Diffusion of responsibility – the structure of large organisations such as Cottonworth can contribute to lack of moral responsibility. You may believe that another employee will act instead.

This ethical scenario will be compared against three ethical frameworks and consequentially highlight moral reasons for choosing both options which form the dilemma.

Utilitarianism

Consequentialist theories claim that only the consequences of an action are relevant when determining if that action is ethical. Utilitarianism is an example of consequentialist ethics which claims that the right action is the one in which maximises the overall “good”. One of the developers of classical utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, believed that an act can be determined to be right or wrong by measuring the net amount of happiness with reference to its: intensity, duration, certainty, remoteness, fecundity, purity and extent.

For everyone affected by the proposed action, the total of all increases and decreases in pleasure/pain must be calculated while comparing this to alternative actions and determining which will generate the greatest “happiness” overall. If a proposed action results in more net positive consequences than the alternatives, then this action is morally the right choice. Meaning the agent is morally obliged to take this action and acting otherwise would be considered morally wrong.

When analysing a dilemma from an ethical perspective, firstly all stakeholders must be identified as well as the consequences had by each. The Conflicted Data Analyst dilemma includes four main stakeholders: yourself, the Cottonworths company, the customers and the Department of Defence.

Deciding not to leak the detail to the press will result in pain for yourself (low intensity) as you will be going against your own moral principles. Although you may experience some pleasure for deciding to share (low intensity) and staying true to your personal beliefs, you will also experience pain from the repercussions of breaching the company’s policy (high intensity, long duration) and potentially hindering your future career.

The Cottonworths Company will experience pleasure if you decide not to share (low intensity) and all employees and shareholders will be able to benefit from the large profit the contract will bring. However, if details are leaked the company will experience pain as they will have to deal with backlash from the public and could suffer financially (medium intensity, short duration).

The customers of Cottonworths will experience pleasure (low intensity) if they are unaware of the new deal that has been made, continuing with their satisfaction of Cottonworths’ purchaser program. However, pain will be experienced if they are made aware of the arrangement and their personal data is being accessed by a third party without their permission (medium intensity).

The Department of Defence will experience pleasure if you keep knowledge to yourself as they will be able to better detect terrorist activities (medium intensity). On the other hand, they will experience pain if the public is to find out about the secret contract (low intensity) resulting in distrust and potentially making it more difficult to detect such activities in the future.

Outcome/Consequence

Stakeholders

No. of Stakeholders

Scale

Not to Share

Scale

To Share

Change in Utility

You

1

-2

-2

-5

-5

-3

Cottonworths company (employees/shareholders)

1 000

+2

+2 000

-4

-4 000

-6 000

Customers

1 000 000

+1

+2 000 000

-3

-3 000 000

-5 000 000

Department of Defence

500

+5

+2 500

-2

-1 000

-3 500

+2 004 498

-3 005 005

-5 009 503

Therefore, when applying the utilitarianism perspective, the action to be taken is to not leak the details to the press as it generates the greatest net positive consequences and least pain for all stakeholders involved.

Kantian Ethics

Kantian Ethics is a form of deontological ethics in which actions only have moral worth when they are motivated by ‘good will’. Regardless of whether the consequences are good or bad, we only act morally if we act because it is the right thing to do. That is, even if our actions continuously result in bad consequences, we can still act morally if we are acting in accordance with moral duty. Kant called this duty the ‘Categorical Imperative’ – it applies in all situations and involves the following two formulations.

1. Universal acceptability – ‘Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that should become a universal law’.
2. Respect – ‘Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means’.

Kant stated that each action must first be considered as a maxim, and to then be universalised. This would make the first action, “I will not leak details to the press, even if it exploits customers to increase profits”. Then universalised it becomes, “Everyone will keep inside knowledge to themselves and exploit customers in order to increase profits”. These are not contradictory statements, although they are irrational in the sense that there is a contradiction in will as no rational person would want this situation. When considering the second action, “I will share details to the press, even though I will have to admit to breaching contract”. Universally it becomes, “Everyone will breach contract and leak details to the press”. In this case, universalized maxim is contradictory. If everyone breaches contracts then contracts will not bind anyone, in which case they cannot be breached.

Thus, according to Kantian ethics, neither action is more ethical than the other as they both fail Kant’s Categorical Imperative.

Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics

Unlike the two previous perspectives, Aristotle’s ethical approach focuses not on individual actions but rather on the agent and their character. This approach called ‘virtue ethics’ has four elements that must be considered:

1. Function, goals and the good
2. Flourishing
3. Virtues
4. Developing the virtues

According to Aristotle’s approach, the first step is to identify a function. Applying this, we know that you are a data analyst for a supermarket chain and their primary role is to gather and interpret data in order to provide insights to better a business. The ‘virtues’ of a good analyst include good problem-solving skills as well as possessing honesty in order to produce reliable data to help improve the business. Aristotle argued that the ultimate human goal is flourishing and that this is best expressed as acting in accordance with these virtues.

In Aristotle’s third element of virtue ethics he provided what is called the ‘doctrine of the mean’. According to this, each virtue or excellence represents an appropriate response in an area that is an intermediate between two extremes, one is ‘deficient’ and the other being ‘excessive’. For example if you decide to leak details to the press and subsequently implicate yourself, you would display moral virtues of honesty as you are making the customers aware that their personal information is at risk, as well as courage as you are prepared to face the consequences of your actions. You would also exhibit the intellectual virtue of knowledge in this scenario as you are aware of the company policies. One the other hand, if you were to keep the inside knowledge to yourself and exploit customers to gain profit, you would not be displaying any of the moral virtues and only that of the intellectual virtue, knowledge as you are aware of company policy.

Therefore, according to virtue ethics the action to be taken is to share the information to the press as it displays more moral virtues.

Recommendations

From analysing this ethical scenario against the three frameworks it can be seen that there are moral reasons for choosing either option which forms the dilemma. However, it is recommended that you keep the inside knowledge to yourself and subsequently share the customer information with an outside party. This is because it provides the greatest overall pleasure for the stakeholders involved and avoids punishment for yourself.

While applying the frameworks it was found that each have their own strengths and limitations which should be considered. Utilitarianism for example is quite simple and provides an unbiased method of reaching a solution but can also be strict, not allowing for much flexibility. The same can be said for Kantian ethics, however this can also form a foundation of human rights. The strengths of virtue ethics are that it provides a broad moral framework and does not assume that all decisions can be resolved by following a rule. Although it does not provide enough guidance for actions or consider dilemmas where virtues conflict.

This should all be taken into account when deciding which action is best to solve the ethical dilemma, however, it is recommended that you keep the knowledge to yourself even though you will be sharing customer information with a third party.

Introduction

Mark Zuckerberg is the CEO of Facebook, the largest social media platform with over two billion active users. The social network is free for users, with the main source of revenue for the company generated from advertising on the site. Without external parties seeking to advertise on Facebook, the value of the company declines.

As CEO of the company, Zuckerberg receives a portion of the profits generated by advertising. He knows that the company can become even more profitable if he acquires third-party advertisers such as Cambridge Analytica. As they would own a large portion of advertising rights on the site, Facebook would significantly increase in value but, in exchange, private user data would be leaked to external companies without initial public knowledge. This case study examines Zuckerberg’s actions from an ethical perspective using the Utilitarian, Kant and Virtue Ethic frameworks.

Utilitarian Framework

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist approach to ethics that aims to maximise the overall good by identifying the action that results in the greatest net happiness. It is determined by predicting and analysing the consequences of different possible actions on stakeholders. If a proposed action will result in more positive consequences overall than the alternatives, then this action is the morally correct choice based on the teleological approach.

In this situation, a deal was created between Facebook and third-party companies for an exchange of private client data for money. The primary impacted stakeholders were Zuckerberg, Facebook shareholders, Facebook users and third-party advertisers.

The primary stakeholder, Mark Zuckerberg, would have a resultant increase in happiness due to the direct financial gain both he and his company would receive. In contrast, if users find out that their confidential information has been sold to external parties, then it is highly probable a large number of users would terminate their use of Facebook and associated programs, leading to an eventual loss of revenue for the company. This would ultimately result in decreased personal financial gain for Zuckerberg, accompanied by a tarnished public reputation, thus lowering his overall happiness, making it morally unethical under the Utilitarian framework.

The shareholders of Facebook would benefit from the deal resulting in increased economic gain, thus maximizing their overall happiness. But, similar to Zuckerberg, if the deal was exposed then they would experience a substantial decline in net happiness because of the financial loss but would not be subject to the same degree of public scrutiny as the CEO.

The third stakeholder is Facebook users. Different reactions will arise if the deal is exposed. Initially, most users would experience shock and disappointment at the company’s actions but is it likely their secondary reactions would differ. Some users may delete their accounts due to the unethical actions of the company breaching the privacy of its users, whereas others may not feel the issue directly impacts them negatively as the company was just using the advertisements to create revenue. Despite this, the breach of data and privacy would inevitably upset a large portion of Facebook users, thus making it a morally incorrect option.

The final stakeholder is the third-party companies that advertise on Facebook. Whilst they will experience a short-term increase in happiness from gaining and using private information for their own benefit, the longer term would see a decline in their overall happiness because their public reputation would be tarnished, and they would most likely suffer significant financial loss from being banned from advertising on other sites.

Utilizing Bentham’s approach in a hedonistic calculus, the above impacts are considered to help quantify whether the overall happiness increases or decreases. A summary can be seen below:

If Breach is Secret If Breach Becomes Public Stakeholder Number Unit of Happiness Gain Result

Unit of Happiness Gain Result

Mark 1 8 8 Increase -8 -8 Decrease

Shareholders 1000 6 6000 Increase -4 -4000 Decrease

Users 2 B — — — -5 -10 B Decrease

Third-Parties 10 7 70 Increase -6 -60 Decrease

Net Happiness 6078 Increase -10,000,004,068 Decrease

Note: Net unit of happiness is measured on a scale of -10 to 10. -10 indicating complete unhappiness, and 10 indicating maximum happiness per unit.

Based on the analysis in the above table, there would be greater net unhappiness if the deal to share information in exchange for money was agreed. Hence, a utilitarian approach to ethics demonstrates that Zuckerman’s actions to pursue the deal are morally wrong and unethical. Kantian Framework

The deontological approach to ethics follows Kant’s categorial imperative, a rule which dictates the truth for all circumstances. Kantian ethics assess the two formulations of universal acceptability and respect to create a maxim to determine the categorial imperative, which all are obliged to follow. An action becomes morally acceptable if it does not oppose the two formulations. The first formulation of the categorical imperative states that people should, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 2019). Applying this formulation creates a maxim that outlines the possible actions, which for Zuckerberg would be, “I will breach the company contract and sell private data if it results in an increase in profits.” This maxim is then universalised to determine whether it is morally acceptable, resulting in the approach of, “Everyone will breach company contracts and sell private data if it results in an increase in profits.” This universalized maxim is invalid as it results in a contradiction of conception meaning that the notion of company protocol becomes pointless, as no one would be following the rules and privacy would become non-existent. This maxim also becomes a contradiction in will because no one would want their private information shared. Therefore, the maxim does not pass the first formulation, thus eliminating the ability for individuals to rationalize according to Kant’s ethics.

Kant’s second formulation of respect states people should, “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means” (Kant, 2019). Exploiting users by distributing confidential information for financial gain disobeys the second formulation because the user’s rationality is not respected by the platform. By having their confidentiality and privacy breached for profit, users are not respected and lose trust, therefore the maxim fails.

Based upon a Kantian approach, Zuckerberg’s actions disobey the first and second formulations, meaning that selling user data for profits is morally wrong.

Virtue Ethics Framework

The Aristotelian approach of virtue ethics focusses on the moral character of a person rather than the rules or consequences of actions. Through this framework, an ethical person is one who acts virtuously. This framework considers three main elements of function, flourishing and virtues. As the CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg is expected to behave in a virtuous capacity of being intellectual and moral. To be able to flourish in his role, he needs to be aligned with these values. However, the decision to sell data and divulge personal information shows a lack of responsibility on his behalf.

For Zuckerberg to be a moral CEO, it is important for him to demonstrate the virtues of prudence, knowledge and organisation. Prudence of being cautious when discussing the issue to a broader audience so as to not further tarnish the reputation of himself of the company; knowledge of the market and consumer behaviours so as to be aware of the situation and provide the best service; and organisation to instruct, prioritise and lead.

Justice is a pivotal virtue for Zuckerberg as it requires him to be fair whilst still increasing profist for the company, shareholders and himself. This means that Facebook would be in a difficult situation for a short time before he gains respect, profit and longevity with Facebook. Whilst the situation may not be the most desirable, it will achieve the most successful outcome by benefitting Zuckerberg and other stakeholders in the long term without causing any harm to the users, meaning that justice is maintained, and Zuckerberg would be morally ethical.

If Mark Zuckerberg was to continue selling user data, he would be considered to have vices, such as being deceitful to Facebook users, resulting in high probability of users terminating their Facebook accounts. This would not only be detrimental to Facebook but would also result in the least amount of happiness overall. Zuckerberg’s actions can be viewed through the virtue ethics framework as being ethical if he maintains a virtuous character in all situations.

Conclusion

When viewed through the frameworks of the utilitarian, Kant and virtue ethic frameworks, Mark Zuckerberg’s actions can be considered as follows.

From a utilitarian perspective, his actions are considered morally unacceptable as net happiness is only achieved if the deal is not accepted, meaning that selling data would result in net unhappiness, and be strongly unethical. Even though it is not possible to predict all possible outcomes and results, it still provides a generalized outcome. The strict Kantian framework shows that Zuckerberg’s actions violate the first and second formulations of universal acceptability and respect, indicating that his actions are unethical. Through the virtue ethics framework, Zuckerberg’s actions can be seen as ethical if he maintains a virtuous character and upholds the core values of justice and respect, despite the fact that the virtues may not always indicate what is more moral.

Considering all three frameworks, Mark Zuckerberg’s actions of selling private user data to third-party companies in exchange for financial gain can be considered to be unethical and morally wrong. It is strongly suggested that he not follow through with the deal, but rather continue to deliver and improve upon the successful platform that Facebook is today.

References

1. Bbc.co.uk. (2014). BBC – Ethics – Introduction to ethics: Virtue ethics. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/virtue.shtml [Accessed 21 Mar. 2019].
2. Bbc.co.uk. (2014). BBC – Ethics – Introduction to ethics: Virtue ethics. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/virtue.shtml [Accessed 21 Mar. 2019].
3. Csus.edu. (2019). KANTIAN ETHICS. [online] Available at https://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/kantian%20ethics.htm [Accessed 24 Mar. 2019].
4. Driver, J. (2014). Kantian Ethics. In R. Low (Ed.), Business Law & Ethics (pp. 25-34) Milton, Australia: John Wiley & Sons.
5. Ethics Unwrapped. (2019). Utilitarianism – Ethics Unwrapped. [online] Available at: https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/utilitarianism [Accessed 22 Mar. 2019].
6. Julien, A. (2013). Choosing a Kantian Maxim. [Blog] We Love Philosophy. Available at: https://welovephilosophy.com/2013/01/07/choosing-a-kantian-maxim/ [Accessed 25 Mar. 2019].
7. Mastin, L. (2018). Virtue Ethics – By Branch / Doctrine – The Basics of Philosophy. [online] Philosophybasics.com. Available at: https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_virtue_ethics.html [Accessed 30 Mar. 2019].
8. Nicholson, G. (2019). BSB111 Business Law and Ethics: Week 3 – Ethical Agents [Lecture]. Retrieved from http://https://blackboard.qut.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-7379881-dt-content-rid-17023500_1/ xid-17023500_1

Virtue ethics is an application of ethics in our daily lives. We claim ourselves to be humans, basically homo sapiens who have brains and can think logically or rationally. When we make decisions it is based on the previous judgments of our thought process or on the events occurred in the past, distinctions also the experiences from which we gained any little information or understanding. When we use our human mind to integrate the process of living by making rational decisions in life, we always question ourselves who we are, or why are we thinking this way, what will be the benefit of me making such decision or rationalizing, or what are my principle or rules for myself. what do I ought to feel is good or bad. the difference I make in my mind is built on the set construction of ourselves.

The principles of our daily lives makes our conscious thinking ours. It’s like my thinking or my rules for life makes me. if I am to say, that virtues or morals that I possess in my course of conduct/actions are mines, then I have to be fully accountable for the decisions I am making in my life. When we work in the office we treat people based on our set of virtues, we tend to define or conduct our action as virtuous or not virtuous based on what principles I have for myself. I don’t always abide by rule-based work performance, instead, I look to the basic problems and issues faced by my clients, subordinates or someone at home whom I am responsible for.

The principles which I use for self is the role of my own character and virtue in virtue ethics. When I think rationally on the virtues or morals I have from within, that I can co-relate a bit with god or divine power that defines me- and my morals and virtues. but when I act on rule-based ethics of the office as, not letting my juniors, subordinates, or someone under me at home like my child to get extra marks, credits, or some appreciation from me, instead tell them about how the office rule is to not be late otherwise their salary of one day will be cut, or to my child at home that you can do better if you had not cheated in the exam, then I am focusing on telling them the moral sets or rules or virtues applied in the world or any office or at my own home. I tell them things as being elder to them with the intention of no profit or gain, as my morality or virtues or ethics. Whereas if I make my subordinate or my child understand the importance of being late, how cheating is bad then I am being me: my moral conscious relative to god, which has nothing to do with my intention of making them a better person, or with any motives. Me treating them with kindness and respect and love is because I feel its exactly the right thing to do. For example, we all have missed classes, lied to parents, procrastinated important works, tried quitting the consumption of tobacco, dialed up our x after drinking even when we all knew it was not morally being correct. Yet when we talk about ourselves, we have to take into account the humanity we have within. Humanity is the essence of having a moral character, that is functioning ourselves to do right, in all situations. Poor character traits, or making bad choices in life can be termed as vices, according to Aristotle. We as humans are about our character, as a whole, not only our actions, or judgments. Our role as a homo sapien should be to use our reason to comprehend, predict, decide in the pursuit of a virtuous life.

Virtue ethics is rooted in more profound questions of us. we ask ourselves, these questions like how I should live, how I should behave, what should be right or wrong morally for me. Virtue ethics also gain the notion that ethics should be in focus entirely on justice and autonomy. Its viewpoint is that caring and nurturing, or the feeling of sympathy, empathy, courage is the principals to practice. In this primed of ideals, “virtue” is more in focus on our collective reasoning and understanding of morality/virtues.ethics in a world that is desperately lagging this quality.

Virtue ethics as defined by Aristotle – is of two categories, mainly rational and righteous or virtuous or moral. Intellectual or rational virtue can be subcategorized as theoretical wisdom and practical wisdom [phronesis}. For Aristotle virtue was implied as excellence. Phronesis is needed for moral virtuousness. For Aristotle being virtuous or ethical is an inevitable requisite for eudaimonia. For Aristotle being ethical is a matter of self-interest, coming from within, to a person. It can be also related to the human’s normal sense of judging or common sense. This self-interest of being ethical/virtuous/morally correct brings their own rewards in the life of the human and are essential elements of eudaimonia. Virtue ethics, according to Aristotle is agent-centered than act-centered. He describes that one can find an immediate path of being virtuous if they are more centered on being good people morally and not focusing on what goodness is.

According to Sommer, virtue ethics involves more than just social policy, but a lot it entails private morality. While it is essential to focus on social morality like capital punishment, euthanasia, transplant surgery, and abortion, there is very little focus on selfishness, hypocrisy, and cruelty, among others. Sommer is concerned that ethics students are learning almost nothing about their private decency, honesty, personal responsibility, and honor. Sommer, therefore, argues that there will be no moral in the society or the government before it is instilled in the learning institutions. An example of social justice that needs to be addressed immediately is plagiarism in the classroom. Students copy assignments from literature, and that is a high level of social injustice. Sommer reveals that cheating is a real primary concern in the universities, “75 percent of university students admit to cheating” (Sommers, 1991). There is also a moral shift where some learners believe that what is bad for one person may not be bad for another. Actually, some students seem to be so dogmatically interested in moral relativism, which offers no ground for thinking that cheating may be wrong. Some people perceive humiliating people may be in a nursing home or stubbing someone to death are the only morally wrong behaviors. On the other hand, many regard starvation and torture as the most immoral behaviors.

I agree with Sommer that changes in morality may be due to the shift in courses offered in the universities. Students might become morally better if their seniors taught them such courses. However, new courses like social sciences have, in the past, flourished in the universities while ethics are seen to be dropping. As such, many learners no longer feels that there is nothing like good or bad, moral, and immoral. Sommer herself admits that after teaching ethics for long, the passion for the course has been fading off “my enthusiasm for them tapered off when I saw how students reacted” (Sommers, 1991). The students evaluated the course in a way that proves how skeptical they are about the subject. Arguably it is because they lack a foundation of the course back from their high school “perhaps it was their high school experience that led them to become antagonistic.

However, I stand to disagree with Sommer on her argument that some ethical issues, like tormenting animals, humiliating someone as well as mistreating children, are not controversial. Personally, I regard them as critical moral questions, which one should not even question because they are touching to lives. I do not find it reasonable to start thinking of where it is wrong or good to torture an animal because it is obvious they suffer some pain, and they have emotions as well. On the other hand, when one mistreats a child because they are vulnerable, then they abuse their rights, and in the end, children suffer because they have no one to defend them. Such acts are truly immoral and should not even be debated in society in any way as either good or bad because they are obviously wrong. Courses on virtue are suitable for edifying behaviors. I believe virtues shape morality, and this does not depend on one’s taste for things or social fashion but rather on the teachings on virtues. For example, many people find Aristotle’s’ arguments on temperance, courage, and generosity so appealing to many learners. Many people will indeed read Aristotle’s philosophies and then develop the right kind of behavior because that is what they mainly target. For instance, when arguing about a concept, the critical focus of Aristotle is to make the reader understand what is good or bad for them. In the end, what stands out is the right part of his argument. Therefore, the wrong bit of the case is covered in the debate.

No one will feel good if they are treating in the wrong way because all human beings want to be treated with honor and dignity since that is what is pleasing to them. Sommer confirms this reasoning when she mentions that when children are asked some questions like “what us your favorite color or how do you feel about hit and run drivers?” then they tend to have almost a uniform answer. The fact that they answer in the same voice points in the direction that there are a right and wrong they are aware of. I do not believe that children should be allowed to discover things by themselves. That is so because every virtue needs clarification at a tender age as a way of helping them to rethink their personal preferences or tastes with regards to moral ethics.

I, therefore, find Sommer’s argument on Values Clarification: No right or wrong, very unsatisfying, especially when she mentions that the teacher who advised the student to cheat anywhere else apart from her classwork was right. The Massachusetts University professor in Newton argued that since she is opposed to cheating, then no one was allowed to cheat in her class. However, she fails to instill the same knowledge in her students when she argues that “in my class, you must be honest, for I value honesty. In other areas of your life, you may be free to cheat”. I find this statement very tormenting because it is the work of the professor to guide the students on what is right and wrong. Most importantly, the students are supposed to identify what is right and cling to it instead of being allowed to search for the truth by themselves. It is saddening that Sommer agrees with her arguments “now this is fine and sincere young woman was doing her best not to indoctrinate her students.” In essence, some morals should just be instilled into young people’s minds like a tradition. In so doing, they are not allowed to wander far away from the truth because they will be growing up knowing what their society expects of them as adults and then pass such good morals to their young ones.

A society without laws is likely to be immoral. According to the video “Philosophy-The Good Life: Aristotle,” Chris Surprenant argues, there should be a balance between being virtuous and continent because, in them, rational desires and satisfying inclinations are aligned (Surprenant, 2015). Such people can choose to do what is right and actually does it. Such characters become part of one’s habit, and in doing so, they live well.

References

1. Surprenant, Chris. (2015, September 8). PHILOSOPHY – The Good Life: Plato [HD] [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFPBf1AZOQg
2. Sommers, Christina Hoff. (1991). Teaching Virtues. Hillside College-Imprimis-W. H. Brady Fellow, American Enterprise Institute. https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/teaching-the-virtues/