Ethical statements are not just about observable facts, but are often statements about what we believe should happen and so are not very easy to establish as true or false, as they are expressions of points of view not shared be everyone. In ethics then, do we know something is good, or do we believe it is good and recognise that our belief is subjective? This is the question philosopher of meta-ethics are trying to answer – can ethical statements have any meaning? There are two schools of thought to do with ethical language, which are cognitive and non-cognitive theories. Cognitivism is the view that we can have moral knowledge.
The answer to this question will vary. Some people are moral realists and hold that moral facts are objective facts that are out there in the world, these people believe that things are good or bad independently of us. Moral values such as goodness and badness are real properties of people in the same way that rough and smooth are properties of physical objects. This view is often referred to as cognitive language. Those who oppose cognitivists are called non cognitivists and they believe that when someone makes a moral statement they are not describing the world, but they are merely expressing their feelings and opinions, they believe that moral statements are not objective therefore they cannot be verified as true or false.
Perhaps more so than Emotivists, Prescriptivists see ethical language as fairly meaningful. They believe that the terms used are able to create absolute rules that everyone ought to follow. It would seem that ethical language is seen by many as very meaningful, although for varying reasons. However agent centred theories such as Virtue Ethics would argue that our main focus of morality should be on becoming as virtuous as possible, rather than deciding what is meant by ethical language. Therefore it would seem that perhaps morality should be more focussed on individuals’ actions rather then defining what is meant by ‘good’ and
The weaknesses of virtue ethics outweigh the strengths, discuss (35) The definition of a virtue is habitually doing what is right; being a virtuous person requires the practice of a certain kind of behaviour. There are a number of arguments for and against virtue ethics, most argue for the formation and growth of us via practical wisdom, which allows us to make the right decisions by using out conscience. Virtue ethics is mainly supported by Aristotle, Phillipa Foot and Alisdair Makentyre. Vitue ethics is based on different virtues which a person should possess in order to reach Eudemonia, Eudemonia should be the ultimate goal in everyone’s life as this leads to ultimate happiness and therefore a healthier and better society. One major strength of virtue ethics is that it allows the moral agent to make ethical decisions based on his or her moral well-being, not just based on what is legally right.
In order to evaluate the claim that the possession of knowledge carries ethical responsibility, it is important to understand ethics and knowledge in the general sense To put it simply, ethics is moral philosophy, or rationalization of conduct as either right or wrong. Normative ethics is the study of determining a moral course of action. The two most prominent ethical guidelines are Kantianism and Utilitarianism. Immanuel Kant suggested that ethics revolve around duty, rather than emotions. All actions are related to an underlying principle.
Virtue ethics is agent-centred ethics rather than act-centred; it asks ‘What sort of person ought I to be?’ rather than ‘How ought I to act?’ The Aristotelian approach shows to give an account of the structure of morality and explained that the point of enrolling in ethics is to become good: ‘For we are enquiring not in order to know what virtue is but in order to become good since otherwise our enquiry would be of no use.’ (Nichomachean Ethics, Book 1, ch. 2) Quite importantly, Aristotle’s distinguishes between things which are good as means (for the sake of something else) and things which are good as ends (for their own sake only), Aristotle seeks for one final and overriding end of human action, one final good – eudaimonia (or final happiness). Philosophers of the 20th century brought about a revival of virtue ethics as many were concerned with the act-centered ethical theories. Virtue ethics is able to do something very different to other ethical theories – rather than focus on the act of a person, virtue ethics will focus on the person itself. The modern development of virtue ethics is often linked back to a paper by G. E. M. Anscombe entitled ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’.
Some people believe that culture is a way that morality can be established, but morality differs from culture to culture. In Doing Ethics, Lewis Vaughn talks about cultural relativism and lays out an argument for it. In the second premise it states “If people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, then right and wrong are relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles” (Vaughn 26). He makes it clear that he does not support this premise and explains his points as to why this is false. Cultural relativism is the idea that the moral principles someone has are solely determined by the culture one lives in.
This is a legal but unethical issue. From this we can conclude that compliance ethics expects only the bare minimum, and to be a more ethical organisation, value ethics should be emphasized. Weaver and Trevino (1999) also believe that value ethics would have more of an impact and last longer in the organisation. Next is how formal culture systems promote ethics. Formal ethical systems consist of factors such as leadership, code of ethics, reward systems, orientation, and training programs.
This is a forward thinking process. However, there is a negative aspect to virtue ethics as it has a grey area when using precedence within decision making. The lack of guidance carries a negative similarity between virtue ethics and deontological theory. Deontological theory is defined in contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of those kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally required, forbidden, or permitted. In other words, deontology falls within the field of moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we should do (deontic theories), in contrast to (aretaic [virtue] theories) that — fundamentally, at least — guide and assess what kind of
“Leadership consists not in degrees of technique but in traits of character; it requires moral rather than athletic or intellectual effort, and it imposes on both leader and follower alike the burdens of self-restraint.” - Lewis H. Lapham Since the existence of humanity people had been categorized as either followers or leaders. There were those who believed they could create a better society and then those who followed a strong leader and gave their responsibilities to the person who could create a place where they could live and thrive. All leaders are followers but not all followers are leaders. A follower is defined as, “someone who supports and is guided by another person or by a group, religion, etc.” (www.merriam-webster.com). In order to become a great leader, one must learn to follow.