In the second and third parts of Ethics and Excellence: Integrity and Cooperation in Business, Solomon, after critique of economic metaphors, begins to describe "the Aristotelian approach to business ethics" and discusses economic virtues.
As mentioned earlier, an important element of Solomon's approach to economic ethics was the view of economic activity as part of a good life, and this approach began with two important concepts, namely "the individual embedded in the collective" and "the importance of happiness as the only measure of success."
And "individuals embedded in the collective" is to restore the collective identity and citizenship of enterprises; Happiness is the most fundamental good, arising from "dwelling in a virtuous community" and "being a good person." So I will elaborate on Solomon's "Aristotelian way", "enterprise as a collective and citizen", and "economic virtue" on solving problems of economic ethics.
The meaning of the "Aristotelian way"
Solomon summarized his comprehensive theory of economic ethics based on virtue as "the Aristotelian way of solving economic ethical problems", mainly for the following reasons?: First, Aristotle discussed finance and profit more than a thousand years ago, and had a certain prejudice, believing that they were immoral, and Solomon believed that it must be newly understood according to the changes of the times, so that they can be discussed in the collective concept.
Second, the emphasis on the community is an emphasis on all collectives, not just economic collectives; Third, "purposefulness" is closely linked to excellence, which is defined by superiority in practical roles and its role in serving larger social purposes; Fourth, Solomon emphasized the individual and personal character; Finally, the discussion of virtue is not new, but traces back to Aristotle.
According to Solomon's book Ethics and Excellence: Integrity and Cooperation in Business (1992), "Business Distinction from Employee to Corporate Success" (1999), another reason can be found, that is, Aristotle's insistence on virtue (or excellence) as an essential element of individual and collective happiness, and Solomon argues that basically all the virtues in Aristotle's "list of virtues" can be applied to economic practice. He even gave 45 detailed directories of economic virtues.
The bottom line of the "Aristotelian way" of economic ethics is that it is necessary to move away from bottom-line thinking and see the business economy as part of the good life. This approach begins with the understanding of two concepts: "begins with the understanding of the concept of the individual living in a group, and begins with the recognition of the fact that happiness is the only criterion for success?", Solomon also sees economic ethics as an individual-oriented ethic, a sense of the individual's desire for virtue in the world, rather than public policy, in which Solomon gives his reasons for not adopting these methods by comparing it with other research methods; Happiness, on the other hand, arises from a virtuous collective and a virtuous person.
The basic assumption of the "Aristotelian way of solving problems of economic ethics" is that what makes a person meaningful is defined by that person's position and role in the collective, as well as the virtues of the collective, which in turn nurtures and encourages each member to be a "good person." Modern business is not only about pursuing profit, but also providing an ethically beneficial environment to cultivate the professional skills and virtues of employees.
Solomon analyzed four approaches to economic ethics that were popular in the 80s of the 20th century. The first is the approach to economic ethics from the perspective of public policy, which he believes is a reflection of established facts and the center of all moral problems, but ignores the question of individual responsibility, while the Aristotelian approach to economic ethics is first based on "the understanding of the concept of the individual in the group";
The second is the more popular research path of deontology and utilitarianism in normative ethics. In Solomon's view, deontology represented by Kant "emphasizes universal rational principles," while utilitarianism represented by Mill is difficult to compare and measure in practice because it involves "various interests and preferences."
These two theoretical approaches tend to impose the use of principle and reason, and also neglect the cultivation of personal character. Aristotle's approach is to "start with a particular group and background, and understand the situation in that group and context", which means more concrete and practical.
Although case studies are a very common method in economic ethics, and their advantages are obvious, Solomon still seems to think that the case study method lacks some emphasis on human relationships, and he believes that the Aristotelian approach is "human first, involving individuality", closer to real-life cases.
Finally, Solomon distinguishes the Aristotelian way from certain views of the virtuous ethic that were popular at the time. Does he lean towards McIntyre and Charles? Taylor's ethical view of virtue, especially agreeing with the emphasis on "a sense of community." Solomon objected to "the ethical doctrine that treats virtue as a special example of moral abstraction",
He argues that in order to become a virtuous person, one should "first cultivate choice and individuality," rather than expressing and applying these virtuous principles. Economic ethics should include reflection on the cultivation of rightness and about virtue, and the enterprise as a collective is "the most perfect place to understand the nature of virtue."
Solomon's system summarizes the essential characteristics of Aristotle's ethics and virtues, and expounds the six elements of the economic ethical thought system it constructs, namely, group, excellence, membership, integrity, and judgment. Solomon's economic ethics were first and foremost based on the concept of a group, a collective that is a collective, a collective within the larger framework of society.
As a collective, the enterprise contains the overlapping collision of different cultures, is the entity of ethical practice in society, and the individual in the enterprise is judged according to the role of the individual in the group, that is, according to the social and economic role he plays. The so-called membership is the personal identity of employees or managers in the organization of the company, and the members have interactive links with the organization and have a common purpose. On this basis, the sense of membership and loyalty of the team forms a sense of integrity.
Integrity implies a practice of consistency and wholeness above the group, influenced by the role of members in the organization, and Solomon believes that by grasping the enterprise as a whole, that is, placing it under the larger community of society, whether as a collective enterprise or as a member of the enterprise, "good judgment" should be cultivated in practical wisdom.
Solomon even believed that when faced with a moral dilemma, it is necessary to think and choose through the agent to achieve a clear inference. "Excellence" implies good value and does not contain special themes and commitments, excellence is a mission that goes beyond profit and commitment, it requires more than excellent completion, but also requires "good works" in the process, Solomon argues?, Aristotle's exposition of virtue, has assumed that happiness matches excellence, excellence means reward, but its purpose is not to return, economic activity and ethical values in economic activity are defined by excellence, Excellence in economic activity is closely linked to productivity, resulting in efficiency. To achieve excellence, economic actors in economic activity learn to cooperate and compete with each other, which is actually a "contribution to a larger group".
It is not difficult to see that the six elements outlined by Solomon on the overall structure of economic ethics are based on the concept of community: membership, integrity, excellence, judgment, and wholeness are all built on the larger framework of treating individuals as members of corporate groups and corporations as groups within the larger framework of society, and it can be said that the framework of Solomon's economic ethics is based on collectives. Section 2: Enterprises as collectives and citizens
Solomon? The original idea of Aristotle's approach to economic ethics was that we were members of a collective that contained shared histories and conventions. We as individuals are not "self-actualized" beings, not spontaneously self-defined creatures, but social animals, no matter how eccentric or innovative the individual, the individual is a fundamental part of society. We share a common interest with the collective, and even in the most competitive collective, our individual interests are attached to the vital interests of the collective. At the same time, this collective is not simply a combination of contracts, individuals have their own thoughts and emotions, but will always share the same emotions with others.
As a collective, enterprises have their own internal structure and organization, of course, leaders with outstanding abilities may occupy a more important role in this organization and structure; The economy is the support of corporate culture behind social practice activities. Solomon believed that individual members of an enterprise can define their identity through roles in the organization because the culture in the enterprise has the desired settings and procedures. When individuals perceive "personal values" as conflicting with "pressure to obey social goals," their identity can be very confusing.
And, he says, even the ethical issues about individuals and the more confusing ones are tied to structure and organization. When discussing economic virtue, it is necessary to consider that on the one hand, individuals strive to achieve excellence in a large collective, and on the other hand, this collective in turn defines virtue, and interprets the individual and the collective into atomic accumulation and even confrontation, which will eventually form a split.
Individual happiness is not money due to greed, but "a fulfilling and meaningful life and a decent and successful community (whether family or business)", which is indeed in line with the "ideal" that people want to pursue today.
Bibliography:
- WAN Junren. New Development of Contemporary Social Ethics in the United States[J].Social Sciences in China,1995;
- GAO Guoxi. Contemporary Western Movement in Moral Ethics[J].Philosophical Dynamics,2004;
- Chen. Virtue ethics and moral construction[J].Jiangsu Social Sciences,2005;
- Chen. A Review of Aristotle's Ethical Thought on Virtue[J].Jianghai Journal,2005;
- Kou Dongliang." A Review of Moral Ethics[J].Philosophical Dynamics,2003;