Ethical Perspectives

Introduction

How one assesses business depends upon their primary moral beliefs. Most moral viewpoints have incorporated the assumption that ethics and common sense are two different things. Older people normally disagreed that the difficulty of ethics were inconsistent with the necessities of business common sense, and so condemned the business industry (Hicks, 1990). This paper will discuss four ethical perspectives by reflecting and explaining each.

Character/Virtue

There are a number of different virtue ethics. It is an up-and-coming concept and was originally defined by what it is not, rather than what it is. The expression "virtue ethics" is a fairly new one. Virtue ethics was set apart as a groups rivaling worth because it focused on the central role of awareness like personality and virtue in an ethical approach (Athanassoulis, 2006). Virtue ethics speculations take their support from Aristotle. Aristotle's nature is, about a state of being. It is about having the right internal positions. Character is also about responsibility. Aristotle's theory is a theory of accomplishment. Recognizing that kindheartedness is the suitable reply to a condition and feeling fittingly inclined, will also lead to an equivalent effort to proceed compassionately. Another unique trait of virtue ethics is that personality traits are constant, unchanging, and dependable outlooks. A person with a firm character can be relied upon to perform without fail over time (Athanassoulis, 2006).

Virtue "lies in a mean" since the right reply to any circumstance is neither too much nor too little. Virtue is the proper response to special conditions and diverse agents. Virtues are connected with feelings (Athanassoulis, 2006). Virtue needs the correct desire and the precise reason. To act for the wrong reason is to act inhumanly. On the other hand, to act for the right reason, but not succeed because one has the wrong aspiration (Athanassoulis, 2006).

Obligation/Deontology

If one keeps on accepting the current perceptive of fact, one must visualize morality in terms of the following options. Any intellect of value (teleology) or obligation (deontology) one might want to assign morality thus could be found only outside truth or environment. Concerns have shown that, if one wishes to be neither a moral relativist nor a non-naturalist, one must test the current understanding of fact or nature (Schindler, n.d). Given this idealistic perceptive of nature, there are consequences noted in a general way earlier: namely, obligation (deontology). However one might understand the items of nature as having some purpose or decisiveness. To confirm nature in the same way as resourceful nature is exactly what has been recognized as the perimeter of reason in its natural employment (Schindler, n.d). Utilitarianism, places the moral power for taking action on an individual's responsibility toward other individuals and humanity. The definite has two parts. The first, states that a person should want to take action if and only if he or she would be prepared to have every person on earth, in that same circumstance, will act precisely the same way. The second, states that a person should act in a way that compliments and treats all other concerned as ends as well as means to an end (Weiss, 2006).

Results/Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a theory of ethics that specifies the number of good consequences for a population. It is a theory that the value, especially the moral value of an act should be judged by the value of its consequences. This good is primarily happiness, pleasure, or preferred

satisfaction (Wikipedia, 2007). Though some utilitarian theories might make the most of other consequences, these consequences generally have something to do with the well being of people or nonhuman animals. For this reason, utilitarianism is often connected with the term welfarist consequentialism. It is worth mentioning that Utilitarianism is compatible with both secular and religious ethics, since under Utilitarianism it is the "end result" which is fundamental (Wikipedia, 2007).

Equity/Relativism

Moral authority is determined by the extent opportunities, wealth and burdens are fairly distributed among all. Ethical relativism holds that no common standards or regulations can be used to direct or assess the morality of an act (Weiss, 2006). This observation disagrees that people set their own ethical standards for judging their actions. That may be ethically right for one civilization or society, but may be wrong for another. Cultural relativists would disagree that individual and business professionals doing business in a country is obligated to pursue that country's laws and ethical codes. The advantage of ethical and cultural relativism is that they become acquainted with the difference between individual and social values and traditions (Weiss,