Consequentialist and Virtue Ethic Approaches - Essay Example

Marketing – Out of Season Flowers – Ethics Section I Ethics is the ‘desire to be able to justify our actions to others on grounds they could reasonably accept’ (Scanlon1982). In Ethics, the main schools and approaches are: 1. Consequentialist Ethics: depends on definition of what is right and what is wrong on the outcome (consequence). If the consequence of an action is good then the action is ethical. A subset of this is the Utilitarian approach, which depends on classifying an act as ethical if the outcome results in the ‘greatest happiness of the greatest numbers’. 2. Deontologist Approach: or ‘duty ethics’ in simpler terms, considers that the outcome of the action is not as important as compared with the moral actor having performed duty according to rules, principles and imperatives. 3. Virtue ethics: Virtue ethics appraises the characteristics of the agent and not what should be done (deontology) or the outcome (consequentialism).The approach emphasises that action, within the principles of virtuosity, is ethical if virtue informs the action and leans on a moral evaluation of the performer rather that on the result or the duty considerations. In addition some philosophers have posited different approaches for delineating the ethical from the unethical, these are essentially shades of the above three basic approaches, and not recounted here. This essay looks at Consequentialist and Virtue Ethic approaches and their application in modern business practices using specific reference to the supply chain up to the customer of flowers that are out of season within the United Kingdom. Flowers, grown in all parts of the world, find their way to the auction houses in Holland. Buyers and representatives of large dealers buy the flowers and transport them to their respective countries and from there to the retail outlets. The chain is so organised that the flowers are at the retail outlets within hours of harvest. However, glitches do take place and the flowers may be out of season by the time they reach retail. In addition, stale, and flowers of lower quality sometime spend more time in the auction areas until a buyer picks them up at fractional prices or a decision taken to destroy them. A number of questions of ethics and ethical behaviour arise here from the points of view of the supply chain, the retailer, the customer, and consumer groups. Within the paradigm of consequentialist ethics, according to Williams (1973), confusion exists between goals (the desired/ desirable consequence) and actions, for once a goal is achieved, it becomes the means to the achievement of, or definition of, the next aim or goal. This continuity is bound to carry on as long as we are alive and taking some action. Therefore, the journey defines the goal rather than the consequence of a specific action. This suggests that not everything “that has value, has it in virtue of its consequences” (Williams, ibid: p 566). Thus, if one is committed to doing something that is ethically correct then the consequences of such commitment may or may not be good. Hursthouse (1998) argues that consequentialism bases itself on a self-contained definition of “good” (ibid, p21). The good consequences targeted depend on the agent’s judgement and abstract character virtues such as honesty, justice and courage and represents straying into the field of virtue ethics. If the ends justify the means, i.e. if the consequences are the only measure of judgement of the actions of a moral agent, then such judgement may not meet the context of moral rules in which the action takes place. Selling out of season flowers to draw ‘good’ results for the supply chain is not morally correct from the customer’s perspective. If the retail vendor of the flowers considers the consequences to the supply chain in case of a refusal to deliver the flowers to the customer and the losses it would cause, the vendor will sell the flowers and the consequences – good. However, the consequences for the customer who buys the flowers mean that the action of the retailer does not have a good consequences and the action is unethical. This is the moral schizophrenia that Stocker (1998) refers to which forces a person to keep motives and reason divided, in order to live a meaningful life. Stocker (ibid) argues that modern ethical theories, such as consequentialism, are inadequate in achieving harmony between reason and motive, and between higher order ‘goods’ and lower order goods. Consequentialism is alienating, as it forces the action agents to take an impersonal view of their actions (Williams 1973). The concept emphasises that the consequence of actions takes precedence over the agents who produces such actions. This places a demand on the moral agent to pursue a course of action that will produce the most beneficial result in a given circumstance and sacrifice any personal objects and commitments (Williams ibid). The fact that delivery of the out of season flowers to the customer would be made by others in any case does not absolve the retailers from the consequence of their actions. Who then defines the consequences? The concept of the ideal or neutral observer has to inform determination of whether the consequences of a moral action are right, and thus ethical. In the particular situation, looking for an omniscient observer who can understand all the consequences of the action of the retailer is difficult. Therefore, it is essential to determine who the ideal observer is – one that can understand the consequences best, if not the circumstance. In modern marketing terms, the final judge of quality and value of a product is the customer and the action of the retailer who sells out of season flowers and indeed the entire supply chain, is the customer. In their analysis of literature, Tsalikis and Fritzsche (1989) conclude that the focus on deontological and teleological moral philosophies lead to misleading results and does not address the dynamics of ethical evaluations. Gaski (1999) concludes that marketer would be within ethical bounds if they “obey the law” and act in their “own self-interest”. However, “obedience to the law may be colored by beliefs about whether others obey the law and the possibility of being caught” (Smith 2001, p8). Smith (ibid) concludes that obeying the law is essential but not sufficient for responsible conduct. In a number of situations, the law and self-interest may provide divergent guidance on action. Issues such as ethics in supply chains can rarely be addressed using theories developed by moral philosophers (Whysall 2000, p189). Nill and Schibrowsky (2007), have carried out a detailed review of literature on ethics in marketing and show that existing literature is not enough to understand the nature of marketing ethics as also how theories may assist in understanding ethics related issues. Defining, justifying and articulating ethical standards are “so difficult” (ibid: p272). Such standards, developed within the framework of theoretical work of moral philosophers, would help in the marketer obtaining societal approval that is so vital in the present day context. Consumer groups can rely on the consequential ethic in demanding protection of the rights of the end user of the flowers. The elementary consequence of selling out of season flowers is that the customer does not get the quality that was expected and ‘value for money’ and this is detrimental to the customer’s interest. However, it is difficult to quantify such issues and one may not be able to determine to what extent the flowers are out of season as also the extent of the negative consequence for the customer. Section II Using the consequentialist ethic a retailer may support the supply chain that provides flowers that are out of season at the point of their sale in the United Kingdom by justifying their actions as having positive consequences for the different elements of the supply chain up to the retail outlet. The retailer may justify the action to sell the out of season flowers by relying on the outcome in case he/she refuses to sell the out of season flowers, and how that may affect the different people in the supply chain. For example, this supply chain may extend back to a poor farmer in a third world country who grew the flowers. Acceptance and selling of these flowers may have serious consequences, either way, on the very livelihood of that poor farmer. The action to sell the flowers is thus ethical from the consequentialist interpretation. The same consequentialist ethic as applied to understanding the action of the retailer vis-à-vis, the consequence of the behaviour on the customer of the flowers shows that the action of the retailer is unethical. By not delivering value for money and, by not clearly indicating the out of season nature of the flowers being retailed the action is definitely prejudicial to the interest of the customer. Using the consequentialist ethic and from the customers’ perspective, the consequences of the action of the retailer are unethical and must therefore inform his decision-making. This must be regardless of the consequences for the supply chain and arguments that if the retailer does not sell the flowers someone else will. We therefore see that the consequential ethic norm helps support both sides of the same argument, viz. the ethicality of the retailer’s action. Business is a part of society, ‘authorized by the larger society to act for specific … purposes’ (Werhane and Freeman 1999: p4) and to serve as a vehicle for the coordination of stakeholder interests. In the context of organisations what is ‘good’? Definition of ‘good’ is usually “material prosperity or shareholder value” (Murray et al 2005). This understanding needs modification to include concepts like sustainability to read ‘sustainable material prosperity’ or ‘sustainable shareholder value’ (ibid, p 202). Marketing is the most visible face of an organization with its stakeholders, and ethics is one of the most challenging issues it faces. Building relationships with customers, based on trust and commitment, is clearly loaded with ethical considerations (Whysall 2000), and the public has usually mistrusted modern business almost since inception (Stevens 2004) and recent scandals have not helped. The market abounds with cases involving sale of unethical products, unethical practices including dumping of goods, false and misleading advertisements, product liability, foreign child labour, untested drugs, selling of alcohol and tobacco to teenagers etc. (e.g. Dunfee et al 1999; Lawrence et al 2002; Lund 2000). Sustainable customer relations and shareholder value require adoption of ethical practices. Virtue ethics is a concept that bases itself on a simple system that helps understanding the actions of a moral actor as assessed from the point of view of the well-being of the society and the individual. Its main attraction lies in the fact that it appeals to religious and secular morality. The goals set are realistic because they model themselves on the behaviour of real people described as being virtuous and a clear relationship is built between the theoretical and the practical aspects of life. Aristotle (384-322 BC) recommended the ‘Golden Mean’ as the behaviour to follow, implying a path that is a balance between extremes, such as courage is a virtue balanced between the extremes of cowardice and foolhardiness both of which are vices (as discussed in Vardy & Grosch, 1999). According to Aristotle, there are three types of human excellence (virtue): bodily excellence, excellence of character (moral virtue), and excellence of intelligence (intellectual virtue) (Urmson, 1998). Others such as Vardy & Grosch (1999) acknowledge only the latter two. While physical attributes such as strength and good looks may have had relevance in Aristotle’s time they seem irrelevant today. An individual’s character and intelligence are controllers of the rational, and within these spheres, individuals exercise choice and deliberation. Different philosophers have recommended that when faced with a moral dilemma the path dictated by virtuous behaviour is the one that is more realistic and likely to yield results that are conducive to the flourishing of society (e.g. Alistair Macintyre(1985)). Macintyre wanted Ethics to base itself less in the “Ivory Tower” of Academe and more in the “Real World” (Vardy & Grosch 1994, p95 – 104). Dawson & Bartholomew (2003) argue that Macintyre places too much faith in Virtue – a person could possess all the virtues, yet still behave in a vicious way. Vardy and Grosch (1999) state: "Christianity has traditionally been dominated by natural law thinking and situation ethics arose out of this background ... Situation ethics can be summed up in two quotations: There is only one ultimate and invariable duty, and its formula is `Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself`. How to do this is another question, but this is the whole of moral duty (William Temple). The law of love is the ultimate law because it is the negation of law; it is absolute because it concerns everything concrete... The absolutism of love is its power to go into concrete situations... (Paul Tillich)" (references not supplied). However, ethical behaviour falling within the ambit of virtuous behaviour is not without its drawbacks. For example, telling the truth always is virtuous; then how does virtue ethics dictate the response of a person asked to inform the whereabouts of a potential victim when questioned by a murderer? In the case of the flower retailer, the answer is again difficult to find within the norms of virtue ethics. By keeping quiet about the ‘out of season’ quality of the flowers, the retailer has not lied; but is his action virtuous? Obviously, the virtue ethic as well as consequential ethic paradigms have been violated somewhere. Social responsibility and socially responsible management have been at the forefront of recent discussions and legislation such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, in recent management discussions. These revolve around urging managements to exercise care and diligence, good faith, not to misuse information, position etc. these appear to be based on expectations of ethical behaviour within virtue ethic norms. Social responsibility includes responsibility for the societal needs, diversity, environment, and governance while they may be distinct from the theoretical view but linked intrinsically. Ethical dimension of social responsibility demands that business operates with ethics and a conscience that goes beyond the mere obeying of laws (Murray et al 2005). In ethical terms organizations need not only to look at a short term perspective on meeting ethical needs but those that provide sustainable growth of business. The customer is the final arbiter of quality and value and undeniably accepted as being so in most situations involving the marketing of consumer goods including flowers. Selling out of season flowers to the customer is as unethical as selling a drug that has outlived its shelf life, perhaps not as dangerous, but unethical. Using virtue ethics the consumer can respond to the retailers’ supply chain with the expectation that the different elements in the supply chain will act in a ‘virtuous’ and therefore truthful manner. The customers are within their rights to demand marking of details such as packing and ‘sell by’ date marking etc by an agency that is competent to do so. This places reliance on the ethics of virtue of the agency and an unchallengeable determination of ethical or unethical behaviour in case of any demur. Aristotle’s ‘Golden Mean’ can be found by ensuring that the fresh flowers are segregated from the out of season flowers and the latter offered to the customer at discounts clearly indicating the nature of the discount and why it is being given. This will then place the decision, and the consequence of the decision, squarely in the hands of the customer and where it truly belongs. References: Dawson, D. and Bartholomew, C. (2003): Virtues, managers and business people: finding a place for Macintyre in a business context, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 48 (2) pp 127-38 Dunfee, T. W.; Smith N. C.; and Ross W. T. (1999): Social contracts and marketing ethics, Journal of Marketing 63 (3): 14–32. Gaski, J. (1999): Does marketing ethics really have anything to say? A critical inventory of the literature, Journal of Business Ethics 18 (3):315–34 Hursthouse, R. (1998): “Normative Virtue Ethics,” in Crisp, R. (ed.): How Should One Live? Essays on the Virtues, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp 20-23. Lawrence, C. B.; Wotruba, T.R.; and Low, T. W. (2002): Direct selling ethics at the top: An industry audit and status report. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 22 (2): 87–95. Lund, D. (2000): An empirical examination of marketing professionals’ ethical behavior in differing situations. Journal of Business Ethics 24: 331–42. MacIntyre, A (1985): After virtue, Gerald Duckworth, London. Murray, P.; Poole, D. and Jones, G. (2005): Contemporary Issues in Management and Organisational Behaviour, Thomson Learning Nelson, Australia. Nill, A. and Schibrowsky, J.A. (2007): Research on Marketing Ethics: A Systematic Review of the Literature, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 27(3), 256-273 Scanlon, TM 1982, ‘Contractualism and utilitarianism’ in A Sen and B Williams (eds), Utilitarianism and beyond, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp 103–128. Smith, C. (2001): Ethical guidelines for marketing practice: A reply to Gaski and some observations on the role of normative ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 32 (1): 3–18 Stevens, B. (2004): The ethics of the U.S. business executive: A study of perceptions, Journal of Business Ethics 54 (3): 163–71 Stocker, M. (1998): “The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories,” in Crisp, R. and Slote, M. (eds.): Virtue Ethics, Oxford University Press, 66 Tsalikis, J.; and Fritzsche, D.J. (1989): Business ethics: A literature review with focus on marketing ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 8 (2):695–743 Urmson J.O. (1998): Aristotle’s Ethics, Blackwell, Oxford Vardy P, Grosch P. (1999): The puzzle of ethics. London: Fount Werhane, PH and RE Freeman 1999, ‘Business ethics: the state of the art’, International Journal of Management Reviews, vol 1, no 1, pp 1–16. Whysall, P. (2000): Marketing ethics – An overview, The Marketing Review 1 (2): 175–95 Williams B. (1973): “A Critique of Utilitarianism”, pp.566-583, in Smart, J.J.C. and Williams, B. Utilitarianism: For and Against, Cambridge University Press Read More