Business ethics, as a contemporary discipline, has focused primarily on the principle based ethics of deontology and utilitarianism.(1) While deontology and utilitarianisms are not necessarily mutually exclusive,(2) they are viewed as opposing theories. Further, these theories are generally taught using problems or dilemmas that must be solved using rational rules and principles. Edmund Pincoffs refers to this as "quandary ethics."(3) The focus of these principle-based theories is on the individual and the belief (generally unstated) that the individual can and does act alone. Recently, however, some have expressed dissatisfaction concerning the direction that this mainstream business ethics research and teaching is taking.(4) Some of this dissatisfaction can be traced to Alasdair MacIntyre's 1981 book, After Virtue.(5) While not a critique of business ethics per se, McIntyre concludes that "in spite of the efforts of three centuries of moral philosophy and one of sociology, [we] lack any coherent rationally defensible statement of a liberal individualist point of view."(6) This article will look at a competing theory, virtue ethics, and discuss how this theory may be more closely tied to current research in the cognitive sciences. The article will also review Robert Solomon's book, Ethics and Excellence,(7) which takes MacIntyre's criticism to heart and begins the long process of applying virtue ethics theory to for-profit businesses.

Virtue Ethics

What is virtue? This ancient question, most famously posed by Socrates,(8) has continued to intrigue (plague?) philosophers and lay persons alike. Virtue and the concept of the virtuous person were explored by Aristotle(9) and filled much of the work of St. Thomas Aquinas.(10) From the perspective of the casual observer, however, somewhere along the way, virtue language almost disappeared from the formal study of philosophy. The "good life" and the "good person" were replaced with notions of duty, obligation, maximization, benefits, harms, and justice. While it has been argued that Kantian notions of duty and obligation did not (and do not) replace virtue ethics(11) and that John Stuart Mill's work on utilitarianism "is not a theory of collective pleasure but an Aristotelean conception of the virtues as part and parcel of both individual and general well-being,"(12) it has been only recently that there was a resurgence of theoretical interest in the virtues.(13) Not surprisingly,(14) Virtue ethics was all but ignored by applied ethicists as well.(15) In the philosophical community the "return" of virtue is credited to Elizabeth Anscombe's 1958 article, entitled "Modern Moral Philosophy."(16) Since that time there have been a number of important articles and books investigating virtue ethics.(17)

An Overview Of Virtue Ethics

Historically, virtue ethics has been equated primarily with the works of Aristotle. Virtue ethics can be distinguished from other ethical theories by its emphasis on the person (agent) as opposed to the person's acts.(18) "It asks what sort of person one ought to be, or what sort of life one ought to live

Aristotle was also concerned about communities and how to live a virtuous life within a city-state. The city-state was Aristotle's community. Aristotle stated, "[h]e who would duly inquire about the best form of a state ought first to determine which is the most eligible life."(28) His major emphasis was on living the "good life" and having a "good" city-state. The good life could be explained in objective terms and could be decided upon by the community. Later philosophers rejected the notion that anything objective can be said about the good life.(29) The good life and a sense of community are not built into more current philosophical theories, especially those that are obligation,(30) utilitarian, or justice based.(31)

Since the "revival" of interest in virtue ethics, several philosophers have put forth differing theories. Gary Trianosky, in a first attempt at categorizing virtue ethicists, lists the following tenets, although few, if any philosophers agree about every point and some of the tenets are rejected outright by most writing on the subject.(32)

(1) The most important question in morality is, "what is it right or obligatory to do?". (2) Basic moral judgments are judgments about the rightness of actions. (3) Basic moral judgments take the form of general rules of principles of right action. Particular judgments of the right are always instances of these. (4) Basic moral judgments are universal in form. They contain no essential reference to particular persons or particular relationships in which the agent may stand. (5) Basic moral judgments are not grounded on some account of the human good which is itself entirely independent of morality. (6) Basic moral judgments are categorical imperatives. They have a certain 'automatic reason-giving [justificatory] force' independently of their relation to the desires and/or interests of the agent. (7) It is possible for considerations about what is required by basic moral judgments to play some role in the actual motivation of any agent, independently of the operation of desire and emotion in him/her. (8) It is necessary that considerations about what is required by basic moral judgments play some role in the actual motivation of the truly virtuous agent, independently of the operation of desire and emotion in him/her. (9) The virtuousness of a trait is always derivative from some relationship it displays to what is antecedently specified as right action.(33)

While these tenets differ in degree from each other, they all express a commonality. That commonality is the focus on the agent or individual and that person's relationship to the community in which the individual resides.(34) Even though the theories differ in some respects, all virtue ethics are "individual character based." The emphasis, regardless of form, is on looking at people, the character that they currently possess, and the character that they can and should develop. Its focus lies in understanding human flourishing(35) and in determining bow an individual's character contributes to that goal.

Historically there have been two major criticisms of virtue ethics theory. The first is that virtue ethics, in its strong sense, insists that "we can all achieve the end of happiness together by cultivating our own character."(36) This insistence does not recognize the role conflict plays in our lives. The second criticism is that in identifying any particular list of virtues, the virtues listed are by necessity culture specific and cannot be universalized.(37) McIntyre responds to this criticism by suggesting that "[r]ationality is far more faceted, historical, community-centered, and infused with human needs and yearnings than the Enlightenment would have us believe."(38) It is further argued that

[i]f we recognize that morality is always bound to a social tradition, we will not expect conclusive resolutions of moral debates unless these are carried on within a sufficiently rich coherent tradition. And if we reckon that moral thinking requires a notion of human nature not just as it is, but as it would be if it realized its telos, or ultimate end, then we shall seek to recapture a tradition in which inquiry into our telos is a basic and legitimate exercise of human rationality.(39)

This inquiry into our telos might be addressed more adequately by looking at human flourishing through the eyes of cognitive science.

Discussions about human nature and individual character clearly tie in with the developments in cognitive science. Even though Lawrence Kohlberg's work on moral development began in 1958,(40) it is still regarded as pioneering.41 The basic finding of Kohlberg's work is that moral development progresses in stages. Further, studies by Kohlberg critics, Carol Gilligan(42) and Mary Belenky, et al.,(43) found that individuals (women) progress through stages, although not necessarily the same stages as noted by Kohlberg. There have also been longstanding longitudinal studies aimed at identifying just what those stages are and what influences that progression.(44) This type of work can be used to help us identify, not only how moral development occurs, but it can also help identify those conditions necessary for human flourishing and those conditions which make for more fulfilling communities.

This, then, is a very short overview of the types of questions virtue theories are addressing. For those interested in business ethics, however, the question can be raised about virtue ethic's relevance to a business setting.

At first glance, using Aristotle to develop a set of virtues for business people seems quite odd. It was of course Aristotle who condemned profit, accepted slavery, and promoted the lower status of women. What is useful in Aristotle, however, is not necessarily his conclusions about the human condition, but the types of questions he asked and the type of reasoning he used.(45) Aristotle asked questions about what made humans happy, what constituted excellence, and what were the legitimate goals of the state. These questions seem to be universal and the search for answers ongoing. Given a changing social structure, in another historical time, Aristotle may well have embraced business and argued "that it would be for the corporation's own benefit to view itself as a community unto itself whereby its 'purpose is not merely to provide a living but to make a life that is good."'(46)

This does not mean, of course, that Aristotle would have embraced all current activities of a modern corporation. Indeed he would have been appalled at how the relationship between business and the individual is now defined by business ethicists. As Robert Solomon describes,

[I]t is just this schism between business and the rest of life that so infuriated Aristotle, for whom life was supposed to fit together in coherent whole, it is the same holistic idea - that business people and corporations are first of all part of a larger community, that drives business ethics today.... According to Aristotle, one has to think of oneself as a member of a larger community, the Polis, and strive to excel, to bring out what was best in ourselves and our shared enterprise. What is best in us-our virtues-are in turn defined by that larger community, and there is therefore no ultimate split of antagonism between individual self-interest and the greater public good.(47)

With this in mind, let us turn to a discussion of what business ethics might look like if it were based on virtue.

Robert Solomon's Ethics and Excellence(48)

Unlike theoretical philosophical models, it appears as if business ethics faces some unrelenting constraints. The first is that it needs to be practical, i.e., it has to be able to be used by business professionals. Logic proofs, while elegant, are not useful to managers faced with decisions about whom to lay off during economic downturns. Second, business ethics must work within the framework of an actual business environment, i.e., entities whose role is dictated to some degree by economics. Current methods of addressing business ethics, like social responsibility or public policy tend to isolate (and perhaps insulate) individuals from their respective roles within business organizations. More indirectly, it has been argued that case study applications of utilitarian, Kantian, and justice arguments only serve to produce relativism in students as well as in business executives.(49) The use of ethical quandaries is said to reduce morality to questions of conscientiousness when in fact in complex social orders, rules conflict and context is more important than abstraction.(50) In a business setting this means the following:

First, virtue ethics focuses on the conformity between right thinking and desire.... Second, virtue ethics treats virtue as a manifest, perceptible feature of action.... Third, virtue ethics conceives of human activity as continuous. Past actions, by molding character, become the cause of future actions.... Fourth, virtue ethics stresses the importance of individuals being able to make contributions of value to a society or communal enterprise.... Fifth, virtue ethics preserves a role for excellence and helps counter the leveling tendency of deontological ethics.... Finally, virtue ethics stresses that people become what they are within a community.(51)

The call then is out for a different type of business ethics and that type is based upon virtue.

A comprehensive theory of business ethics based on virtue is found in Robert Solomon's book Ethics and Excellence.(52) Solomon identifies his virtue ethics theory as Aristotelian. The reasons are as follows. First, the idea of finance and profit (for Aristotle a vice) must be restructured so that they are placed in perspective with other notions of community. Second, the emphasis is on community - all communities, not just the business community. Third, there is "purposiveness" tied with excellence. This "is defined both by its superiority in the practice and its role in serving larger social purposes."(53) Fourth, the emphasis is on the individual and on the individual's character, and fifth, the theory is not new and can be traced to Aristotle.(54)

The starting place for any business ethics theory, including one that is virtue based, must start with the enterprise we call business. In past (and current) literature, business is described as an economic creature, a creature of the market, a game, a jungle, a war.(55) While traditional business ethics research assumes that morality is rational, and therefore these metaphors are harmless, this view may well conflict with what is known in the cognitive sciences. It has been argued that morality is not rational

Happiness is found in living in a virtuous community and in being a virtuous person. Therefore, a theory of virtue ethics in business must be based upon the following premises. First, a business organization is recognized as a community made up of individuals. As such, it should behave like a community, which means it can be expected to further the "good life" of the individuals it impacts. Second, individuals within a business organization can be expected to behave virtuously. Third, because a business organization is a community it must be stable in order for individuals to thrive much like a "state" or government must be stable in order for its citizens to thrive.

The notion that a business is a community cannot really be denied. Businesses are comprised of people with a (hopefully) shared purpose. We spend a great deal of our time and energy at work, more so than on any other activity except perhaps sleep.(60) If the last twenty years of business ethics research has taught us anything, it is that business impacts its employees, competitors, and communities.(61) In fact, it impacts everything with which it comes into contact. For these reasons, it seems silly that the notion of business as somehow removed from the larger society and the "legal fiction" of a corporation (as somewhat separate) still lingers.

Solomon takes the notion of business as a community a step further by arguing that business is also a practice.(62) In this light, Solomon opines that

'the market' must be understood not as an empty unstructured space in which free agents voluntarily test their skills against one another but as a preexisting community with a network of values and needs (only a few of them biological) and a system of rules that define and constrain the nature of negotiation and the sorts of things that can be negotiated.

In the business world - which is, essentially, our world-no one is outside of the practice, nor could they be, given the power of business and its pervasiveness in our society.(63)

What does it mean to think of business as a community? Does it really change the way we think and more importantly does it change how we act?

To think of the corporation as a community is to insist that it cannot be, no matter how vicious its internal politics, a mere collection of self-interested individuals. To see business as a social activity is to see it as a practice that both thrives on competition and presupposes a coherent community of mutually concerned as well as self-interested citizens.(64)

The corporate community is of course like other communities, and contains clashes, cliques, and antagonisms. So thinking of a business as a community does not necessarily imply harmony or uniformity. It does imply, however, that striving for coherency and cooperation, both within and outside the corporation, is a fundamental objective.(65) It implies that those who live within the inner community of the business and the larger outer community are important. In fact, it implies that human flourishing is the most important activity, and the corporation must only be involved in those activities that promote human flourishing. This can be contrasted with a fundamental objective of making a profit where human flourishing is not considered to be an objective except in some vague sense that the overall greatest good for the greatest number is achieved when everyone acts selfishly.

Describing a business as a community only means that further explanations are needed. For Solomon, a community is further defined in the concepts of excellence, membership, integrity, judgment, and holism. Excellence means that the business (as a community) rewards quality (people not just products), understands group dynamics and personal relationships (membership), values honesty (integrity), makes the best decision possible (judgment), and sees the "big picture" (holism).(66) These same concepts are those that are preached by Total Quality Management (TQM) experts and have been embraced by some of the more progressive American businesses.(67)

Within an Aristotelian community resides virtuous people.

A virtue, according to Aristotle, is itself an excellence

Solomon argues that the basic virtues applying to business relationships are honesty, fairness, trust, and toughness. These virtues assume that business is, at its most fundamental level, a series of mutually agreed upon exchanges. This can be contrasted with a market capital model that seems to assume all business transactions happen independently and somewhat autonomously. If one changes one's view of a business relationship from thinking about isolated occurrences to one where all parties mutually agree then the following virtues become evident. In a relationship where all parties agree, honesty is of the utmost importance. Honesty means simply truth telling.(69) Fairness, meaning to give and receive something of equivalent value,(70) is absolutely required if one expects to engage in the relationship again. Trust means exhibiting an attitude that "most of the people are honest and dependable most of the time."(71) Finally toughness, "is ultimately having a vision and persevering in the long-term plans and strategies necessary to achieve that vision."(721)

A business that exhibits these virtues is one with which we would all like to deal. There would be comfort in knowing that the business was selling a good product, that deception was not occurring, that it stands behind its guarantees and that the price is reasonable. It is also a company where most people would like to work. Working at such a company means you know where you stand, you are paid a fair wage, you are told the truth, and important decisions are actually made.

Besides these basic virtues, Solomon identifies the virtues of the corporate self as friendliness, loyalty, honor, shame, caring, and compassion. Friendliness should not be confused with friendship.(73) We want those with whom we work to be pleasant but they need not be personally close. A work place, however, that does not exhibit friendliness is very difficult indeed.

Loyalty, honor, and shame are emotions. Loyalty is defined as "a kind of integrity, not within oneself ... but rather with oneself conceived as a part of a larger self, a group, a community, an organization, or institution."(74) Honor assumes membership in a group with a code of rules and members living up to those rules. Honor is often thought of as "pride."(75) Shame is the opposite of honor and occurs when one has not lived up to the group's expectations. "To feel shame (not quite the same as our 'being ashamed') is quite literally to fail oneself, but only in the context of one's larger self."(76) The value of these virtues is most clearly recognized when we work in organizations that are not friendly, are not loyal, and exhibit neither honor nor shame. Solomon identifies caring as the glue that keeps the organization together. "Caring in the corporation consists of a fundamental attitude. That attitude is one of mutual affection and obligation."(77) Caring is not just a passive emotion

These virtues - friendliness, loyalty, honor, shame, caring, and compassion - reflect a very different version of a business than the concepts of duty, rights, utility, and efficiency. They conjure up images of a humanistic organization rather than a mechanical organization. Once again, it is when these virtues are absent that we recognize their intrinsic value.

The "ultimate" virtue is justice. Justice is considered to be a most basic virtue. According to Solomon there is "almost universal agreement on at least three points: (1) Justice is not merely a matter of 'might makes right.' ... (2) Irrelevant considerations should not enter into our deliberations.... (3) The most obvious way to reconcile the demand for equal treatment with attention to differences is to insist on equal standards."(81) In the business setting the most important aspects of justice appear to be merit and equality. It also appears as if justice has several dimensions when we have to consider merit and equality in the context of individual circumstances and differences. Solomon uses the example of a manager with $1,000 bonus money to split among two employees. He suggests the following concepts could be taken into consideration before splitting the money. The considerations include: equality, merit (results), merit (effort), ability, need, rights, public good (utility), duties and responsibilities, market value, risk and uncertainty, seniority, loyalty, moral virtue, and tradition.(82) Depending on which consideration is used, one can imagine a multitude of ways for the bonus to be divided. These considerations show that even in this simple scenario, applying a uniform "brand" of justice is very difficult. Ultimately, justice is tied to caring.

Sentiments alone cannot solve or account for the large policy issues that are (or should be) the ultimate concern of those theories of justice, but any sense of justice whatever begins with caring-about ourselves and our reputations, about those whom we work with and for, about those whom we feel akin to and responsible for, about the world. Without that care and concern, there could be no sense of justice.(83)

Solomon's theory establishes a starting place for discussing virtue and its application to business ethics.(84) Its Major strength is its focus on humanizing the business organization and its recognition of every business as a community of individuals within a larger community. While nothing it says is earth shattering or even very new, it can begin a serious discussion as to what a virtuous business person will look like and what specific characteristics that person will develop. It may even help to develop better theories on individual accountability. Herein lies the trouble.

Virtue ethics' major difficulty lies in identifying particular virtues (if you are going to judge someone good or bad or right or wrong based on possession or lack thereof of certain virtues) and trying to universalize them. This is especially important when one looks at business ethics in a global context where cultures may differ fundamentally. Even Solomon argues that "[t]he fact that a virtue must be considered good within the context of one's particular society means that the virtues will vary from context to context, whether because they serve some specific practical function ... or because they appeal to the particular ideal or telos of the culture."(85) This smacks of relativism and seems to admit defeat in the search for a universal code of ethics. Solomon does try to rescue some objectivity by answering "there is such a thing as the human community, and there are certain foundations to our behavior in what is called 'human nature.'"(86) Clearly, much more work is needed to identify the universality of the human community and of human nature. This is where research in moral development and cognitive science can be useful. Even if such a task is not readily achievable, virtue ethics refocuses our attention. We turn towards a study of the individuals that comprise business organizations. We begin discussing the kinds of communities they need to flourish. We stand a real chance at influencing these communities. This in itself is a welcome change. (1) See Charles M. Horvath, MacIntyre's Critique of Business, 5 Bus. Ethics Q. 499, 500-05 (1995). (2) James E. Macdonald & Caryn L. Beck-Dudley, Are Deontology and Teleology Mutually Exclusive?, 13 J. Bus. Ethics 615 (1994). (3) Edmond L. Pincoffs, Quandaries and Virtues Against Reductivism in Ethics (1986). (4) Andrew Stark, What's the Matter with Business Ethics?, 71 Harv. Bus. Rev. 38 (May-June 1993). (5) Alasdair McIntyre, After Virtue (2d ed. 1984). (6) Id. at 259. (7) Robert C. Solomon, Ethics and Excellence: Cooperation and Integrity in Business (1992) [hereinafter Ethics and Excellence]. (8) The Dialogues of Plato, Meno (Jowette et al. trans., 1952). (9) Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (Jonathan Barnes ed., Bollingen Series 1991). (10) St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, pt. I-II, qq. 55-67