Ethics and Philosophy
Aristotle’s concept of virtue
Aristotle visualized virtues as the balance between extremes. He rationalized the desire, the knowledge of the acts and its consequences, and the sense of duty as the judgment of virtue. An example in action is being honest or just not in anticipation of the outcome of the behavior but just for its sake. Subsequently, one must understand the meaning of honesty and justice then strike a balance of the possible extremes in acting honesty or just by championing the cause that serves the interest of humanity. A case in point is a merchant selling goods at the right price without extorting the clients despite being able to exploit the same consumers. The sellers should not maintain honesty out of fear or because she/he expects a specific outcome but do so as a moral duty. Such as act is virtuous.
Do you think Aristotelian virtue is noble or narcissistic, and why?
The philosopher’s virtue is noble because of the reasoning behind the claim. The scholar connects behavior to thought before quantifying the motive of the act. Aristotle is not concerned with the self-expectation and experience but emphasizes the need to act in a specific way as a duty. He then contextualizes the means of the action if the approach considers the experience of the person from an objective viewpoint. After reviewing the ideology of Aristotle, it is conclusive to state that his concept of virtue qualifies as noble. The motive and the expectation balance the cause of the action. The definition implies that virtue is not only beneficial to the doer, but the act benefits humanity besides being a duty.
Kant’s moral imperative
Immanuel Kant’s moral imperative is the belief that an act qualifies as righteous or wrong depending on the fulfillment of the duty and not the implication of the action. The scholar thought that the imperative is influenced by the desire to advance the common cause of humanity. The scholar alluded that one should visualize an act as independent of the consequences, then judge the outcome from a holistic perspective. The view suggests that one should consider the means to the end from a broader perspective and not from the prism of the means of the act alone. The example is sharing information not to gain favor but enabling peoples to learn. The categorical imperative implies that morals are morals for their sake and not because of specific connotations. A case in point is doing right cause its right from a holistic perspective.
Where did he think it comes from, and why did he think it was not selfish to act on your moral imperative?
The origin of the imperative is natural law formulated through a consensus. Kant thought that humanity must adhere to morals because the act is intrinsic. He tied the concept to maxim defined as the universal law. He contextualized the action as morally acceptable because it championed the collective good and not advancing personal agenda. As a result, the act is not selfish. According to Immanuel Kant, the same act can become a law because of its acceptability. The philosophical view helps one to quantify the act from another person’s perspective then use the view in judging the reason for the thoughts that led to the action. The approach to analysing the moral imperative is subjective since the evaluation overlooks the emotive expectations of the doer and the implications of the action.
Rawls’ veil of ignorance
John Rawls’ veil of ignorance is the ideology that the decisionmaker is conscious of the expected action and the implication of the cause of the action. However, the person is unaware of the role he or she should play after the decision. One is uncertain of their presence amidst those targeted by the physical act. Rawl assumed that the human is deviant of the confinement of laws and social constructs that shape his behavior. Nonetheless, the person is rational in action. The philosophical concepts imply that one acts fairly without cognition of their position or duty in society. The school of thought is the basis for decision making using technological devices programmed without the knowledge of the programmer but cognizant of the implication and the need to respond. The action can include judgment of the results of an individual after an exam or analysis of the case using the available facts.
Apply Rawls’ veil of ignorance to (a) animal rights, (b) income inequality, (c) employment discrimination based on immutable physical characteristics
The contextualization of the idea from a moral perspective implies that animals are not the same because of the variation in the physical needs and the attributes of the creature. However, the person treating the animal can address the justice between the animals if the person visualizes self as inconsequential or ignorant. When inferring to the veil of ignorance as framed by John Rawls, the person owing the animal might express an action towards the creature with the intent of fulfilling the needs of animals. During such action, the decisionmaker will visualize a cow differently from a goat because of the variation in the needs of the animal. Nonetheless, the judgement should not recognize one as superior but acknowledge variation in needs or abilities.
The veil of ignorance can equally help in judging social concerns as income inequality. As opposed to contextualizing the variation as detrimental to societal progress, one should consider the differences in the expectation of human beings. The same applies to the judgement of the needs of the person. According to the school of thought, two people might serve in the same position but exude differences in terms of desires and needs. Hence, according to the two same pay is morally wrong. The same applies to task assignments. The one to decide the salary of the two by inferring to ‘the veil of ignorance’ imagines self in the position of the recipient of the action. If the person deems the act fair, the veil of ignorance supports the cause of action. Likewise, the view that adheres to the veil of ignorance suggests that discrimination of persons based on physical traits is justifiable if the actors would desire the same as the recipient of the act. The act is wrong if the perpetrator of the act despises the same experience. However, if the act is unintended, the judgment must consider the view of both parties from a neutral viewpoint.
The right thing
What is the ethical thing to do, according to Aristotle, Kant, and Rawlsand why? What do you think most people would do, and why? Is this good for the company, and why? Is it good for the company’s employees, and why? Is it good for society, and why?
After reviewing the offer for a job that would attract a $25,000 salary increase, the ethical thing for exploration involves quantification of the possible implication of the act to decide the offer since I was not qualified. I was selected to help the company meet the CRS goal of diversity because of my identity (race, sex, age, sexual orientation, religion) and not merits. Before accepting the offer, I will reflect on the ethical concerns using Aristotelian virtue ethics. According to the school of thought by the philosopher, I should decline the offer since the act is not in line with virtue ethics. The scholars recommend consideration of an action balancing the extreme means.
The claim implies that I must meet the qualification to serve in the position; hence, in dealing with the dilemma, I will refute joining a position if I cannot meet the expectation of the duty. The family might not like the decision. The same applies to the company that might seek to address demographic balance at the workplace. Declining the offer is the right thing to do. Most peoples will consider the job because of their families. The company might oppose the decision. However, the act is good for the company, employees, and my family since the overall act balances the means. Moreover, the decision is a fulfillment of duty, and the consciousness of the action and the outcome influenced the choice.
Inference to Kant’s ethics implies that I will opt for the job because the scholar prioritized duty over self-interest. The ideology emanates from the notion that action is not supposed to fulfill personal interest but the collective cause of humanity. Hence, before accepting the offer, I will consider the family and the company then establish qualifications. However, the realization that the company has the duty to employ me based on physical attributes will mandate the company to exempt other employees. I will, therefore, respond to the request as duty and not desire to outwit other potential employees. The imperative moral concept suggests the need for reflection by evaluating the overall impact of the action over the effects posed to self and the family. Likewise, Kant’s school of thought encourages visualization of the long-term impact of the action (Cohen-Almagor, 2017, p. 443). I should not only focus on the end action, but the means to the end. Given that the case poses a dilemma, most people will redress the matter by accepting the job then soliciting the training required for qualification for the tasks. The act is beneficial to the individuals because it helps the person contextualize the action after joining the company. The family will earn a living thought at the expense of another family. The company will gain from the action since it will have fulfilled the duty of meeting the CRS demands. Nevertheless, the decision to decline the position might hinder the realization of the goal of fulfilling CSR requirements. Additionally, the company might render the position vacant from a legal perspective by basing the decision on natural laws. The chances are high that the management created the position intentionally after considering the ethical complexity posed.
The ethical thing to do in accordance with Rawl’s philosophy is imagining self from the position of the family, the company, and the other party qualifying to serve in the position. The basis for the consideration of the decision is that the action is independent of the doer, but the consequence depends on the actor. The scholar inferred to the veils existing in a realm of ignorance in framing his ideology on ways of addressing ethical complexity. Rawls suggested the need to imagine the consequences of the action from the view of the unaffected party. Hence, in the case, I would decline the job offer. I would assume that making the decision could set a bad precedence. Most people will consider accepting the offer if confronted with the challenge. Rawl’s ethics implies that the decisionmaker must consider the good for the company and the family; then visualize the outcome as the unaffected party. The company and the family will benefit from the action since the management will consider the future consequences of such acts before creating a similar position.
What are the ethical considerations for these government actions?
The COVID-19 outbreak has forced states to rethink the approach to addressing the social, political, and economic interests of the masses using radical strategies that have resulted in massive job losses. The decision has been guided by the fact that failure to act could pose dire consequences in the future. Hence, the government weighed in on the ethical implication of the act in the short-term in enacting the measures that violate some of the civil liberties of the masses. The review of the matter from the Aristotelian perspective suggests that the state is striving to justify duty in protecting the lives of the masses. The decision arose from a reflection on the means of opting to liberate the people and allow the spread of the disease or locking down the people and averting the spread of the ailment. A reflection of the developments in the past in the great depression era indicates that the enactment of drastic measures in the short term is necessary if the decision cushion people from the risk of the future. Aristotelian ethics demands one to balance the interest of all parties (Cohen-Almagor, 2017, p. 439). Hence, the state will initiate a lockdown but follow the right procedures.
Inference to Kant’s ethics suggests that the state considered the moral duty to protect the lives of the citizen the utmost responsibility even if the action contributes to job losses. The present regime realized that the prioritization of the health of the masses is mandatory, and the state cannot appeal to the emotive sense of the masses. The government, therefore, restricts the liberties despite the action saddening the population or leading to job losses. This is because the outcome of the action will justify the decision even if the decision violates the liberties of the masses. Immanuel Kant recognized the universality of the action as the desirable cause when addressing problems affecting humanity. For that reason, the government should have engaged all the stakeholders in planning for the process before executing a decision. This is because the acceptability of the act qualifies it as law. However, the opposition to the action delegitimizes state’s intent and decision.
The review of the concern using Rawl’s philosophy suggests that the government is not acting from the imaginary perspective of an ignorant party. The state is participating as the affected; yet, the school of thought demands that the decisionmaker act as an uninterested party. The state should only project awareness of the possibility of the actions halting economic progress as a noninvolved party. The visualization of the decision holistically is advisable. However, the act of the government suggests that the desire to safeguard life is guiding the decision. In instigating an act such as barring people from moving freely, as stipulated by the law, the government is prioritizing life from a perspective of a human. The decision is informed by the thought that human life is sacred. However, the same virus exited for a reason from Rawl’s perspective. The state should, therefore, never assume the role of the masses but balance the interest of humanity.
How could the governments have acted more ethically?
An introspection into the concern indicates that the government could have acted rightfully by first inferring to the historical development in the past, such as the case of the Spanish influenzas. Afterward, the state should consult the public to understand the desire of the masses. The initiatives that follow should not only serve as duty but consider the means of fulfilling the duty. Before imposing a lockdown, the government must evaluate the intention, the expectation, and the act itself. In redressing the situation in the united states, the government should have commenced with the sensitization of the masses to enable the public to contextualize the magnitude of the problems and the risk that lies in failing to heed to the stipulated measures that curb the spread of COVID-19. The step that follows should have been the identification of the means of the action. An example is quantifying the benefit of locking down some areas vis a vis allowing free movement in the places. After settling on the mean action, the government could have initiated the act based on the goodwill of the population. Such could have alleviated the possibility of ethical dilemmas arising from state’s actions.
Conclusion
The concept of virtue ethics describes the acceptable that balances the interest of humanity while ensuring the fulfillment of the act satisfactorily. Aristotle formulated the concept in his work Nicomechean ethics that reiterated the need to balance means, fulfill a duty, and consider the intent and impact before a decision. Immanuel Kant, on his part, reiterated advancement of duty as the pathway to fulfilling an act that addresses the interest of humanity. According to Cohen-Almagor (2017, p. 438), the philosopher prioritized quantifying the intent and the means to the intent that is beneficial to humanity. John Rawls, on his part, explored virtues and morality from an imaginary perspective. He then categorizes the decisionmaker, as a person on an ignorant veil. The philosopher encouraged contextualization of the intent, effects, and means but reiterated exemption from the action. One must visualize ethics from a neutral perspective. The exploration of his view in relation to the perceptive of Aristotle and Immanuel Kant is essential in dealing with complexity, such as accepting a job offer that poses dilemmas or states acts in curbing the spread of COVID -19. Before accepting the job, one must consider the intent, the means, and the consequences before the visualization of the overall decision to humanity. The same ought to apply in state decisions that affect public health and economy as recounted above.
References
Cohen-Almagor, R., 2017. On the philosophical foundations of medical ethics: Aristotle, Kant, JS Mill, and Rawls. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 3,4, pp.436-444