Abstract
This paper starts from the Aristotelian premise that business people become good business people by doing business well. How do we become good at something, be it a craft, a technical skill, or an intellectual activity? Through practice, habituation, and experience, explains Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics. It is no different where our character is concerned: we become good people by performing good actions. Managers at all levels are no exception to Aristotle’s theory about the importance of practice. Of particular interest here is the fact that business people are called “good” not just because of their amoral, strictly “technical” or managerial skills, but because of a combination of these skills and their moral integrity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The most prominent example of social Darwinism in the world of business is probably Milton Friedman, whose view is clearly expressed in the famous article “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits” (Friedman 1970). See also Berger et al.: “For decades, the late Milton Friedman served as the icon for those who believed that in a free enterprise, private-property system the only responsibility of business is to maximize wealth for the firms’ stockholders (within the constraints of the law and ethical custom” 2007).
- 2.
This paper will not discuss deontological approaches to business ethics as they are rather rare and nowhere near as prevalent as utilitarian forms of business ethics. The possible boundary-crossings between virtue ethics and deontological ethics deserve a separate discussion as deontology and virtue ethics are in many ways a more “natural fit” than are virtue ethics and utilitarianism – both forms of ethical theory draw on the importance of intentions and motivations, and both are, to a degree, concerned with character. Furthermore, every virtue has its equivalent in a “deontological rule:” courage implies the imperative “be courageous,” honesty demands one “be honest,” etc. Since utilitarianism is more common in business ethics, and because it is straightforwardly at odds with virtue ethics, this paper focuses on the flaws of this moral theory rather than on deontological ethics.
- 3.
“The principle of utility,” Bentham states, is “that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to ave to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question” (Bentham 1948). Compare John Stuart Mill: “The Greatest Happiness Principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 2001).
- 4.
There are, of course, more complex forms of utilitarianism which do take into account matters of character. Mill, for instance, argues that we should act in a way that corresponds to our “innate sense of dignity” and so introduces a non-consequentialist element into his theory. This paper engages only what could be called “straightforward utilitarianism,” the theory that judges an action as right or wrong based on consequences alone. By introducing a “sense of dignity,” Mill arguably moves away from “pure” utilitarian in the direction of either deontology or virtue ethics, or both.
- 5.
As Aristotle puts it: “Every excellence we choose indeed for [itself]... but we choose [it] also for the sake of happiness, judging that through [it] we shall be happy” (1734).
- 6.
“Companies need to view their commitments to corporate responsibility as one important part of their strategy, but not let the commitment obscure their broad strategic business goals. … companies and their leaders can make important contributions to the common good while advancing their broader financial and market objectives” (Pearce and Doh 2005).
References
AACSB Accreditation Quality Committee. (2007). AACSB assurance of learning standards: An interpretation. (AACSB White Paper No. 3). http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards/. Viewed on November 19, 2011.
Aristotle. (1984). Nicomachean ethics. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle, 2 (pp. 1729–1866). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bentham, J. (1948). Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. New York: Hafner.
Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P., & Drumwright, M. (2007). Mainstreaming corporate social responsibility: Developing markets for virtue. California Management Review, 49(4), 132–157.
Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S., & Korshun, D. (2008). Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2), 37–44.
Danos, P. (2010). Questions of courage, not ethics. BizEd – AACSB International, 2010. http://www.bizedmagazine.com/featured3.asp. Viewed on November 20, 2011.
De Waal, F. (2009). The age of empathy. Nature’s lessons for a kinder society. New York: Random House.
Frank, R. (1988). Passions within reason. New York: Norton.
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times, 122–126.
Gauthier, D. (1988). Morals by agreement. Oxford: Clarenden Press.
Gentile, M. C. (2010). Giving voice to values. How to speak your mind when you know what’s right. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Googins, B., & Mirvis, P. (2011). Stages of corporate citizenship: A developmental framework. Boston: Boston College Carroll School of Management Center for Corporate Citizenship.
Hobbes, T. (1914). Leviathan. London: Dent.
Hursthouse, R. (1999). On virtue ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lichtenberg, J. (2010). Is pure altruism possible? New York Times, 19 October. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/is-pure-altruism-possible/. Viewed on December 3, 2011.
MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Malthus, T. (1798). Essay on the principle of population. Library of Economics and Liberty. http://www.econlib.org/library/Malthus/malPop.html. Viewed on September 4, 2011.
Martin, R., Kemper, A., & Riel, J. (2009). The virtue matrix reloaded: What can it tell us about CSR now? Rotman Magazine.
Mill, J. S. (2001). Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Pearce, J. A., II, & Doh, J. P. (2005). The high impact of collaborative social initiatives. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(3), 29–40.
Peloza, J. (2006). Using corporate social responsibility as insurance for financial performance. California Management Review, 48(2), 52–73.
Pinney, C. (2011). Framework for the future. Boston: Boston College Carroll School of Management Center for Corporate Citizenship.
Vogel, D. (2005). The low value of virtue. Harvard Business Review, 83(6), 26.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Slegers, R. (2012). A Virtue-Based Approach to Business Ethics: Insights from Aristotle and Sociobiology. In: Prastacos, G., Wang, F., Soderquist, K. (eds) Leadership through the Classics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32445-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32445-1_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-32444-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-32445-1
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)