Robert Solomons Theory on Personal Integrity - Research Paper Example

Wholeness includes – rather than excludes – other people and one’s social role’’ (Solomon, 1999, p. 40). To expound one’s understanding of the concept, Brown (2005) sought to initially provide a definition of the term “integrity,” to wit: “Acting with integrity is the same as acting ethically or morally’’ (DeGeorge, 1993, p. 5, as cited in Brown, 2005). Through these contentions, integrity was acknowledged to be linked to the concepts of ethics and morals through integrating relationships with others.

Incorporations, personal integrity was presented to be manifested in two facets through its relational sphere and as a necessary ingredient to corporate success (Solomon, 1999), to wit:

As a relational self, integrity requires a relational awareness, a consciousness of the relations in which one participates. In terms of human action, integrity requires
consistency in action; a consistency between what one says and what one does. So both aspects of integrity are necessary because the self is both relational and an agent (Brown, 2005, 7; Solomon, 1993).

Likewise, Solomon compared a corporation to an individual, both existing within the
midst of a community and that the defined corporate values find meaning in action. As acknowledged, these values that are integrated with action actually become virtues that are instrumental and contributory to good business transactions through social corporate responsibility (Solomon, 1999). This concept, therefore, shows its link to another theory of Solomon: virtue ethics.

On Character and Virtue Ethics
In Beck-Dudley’s review of Solomon’s theory of virtue ethics, the author emphasized its distinctive and distinguishing feature contrasting it from other ethical theories in terms of supposed emphasis on the person (agent) as opposed to the person’s actions (Beck-Dudley, 1996). Solomon wrote several literary discourses on the subject of virtue ethics including his Victims of Circumstances? A Defense of Virtue Ethics in Business where he argued that the concept of character “emphasizes dynamic interaction both in the formation and in the interplay between personal agency and responsibility on the one hand and social pressures and the environment on the other” (Solomon, 2003, p. 43). As can be deduced, the link between an individual’s role and responsibilities is seen as closely interrelated with external social and environmental factors that should not be overlooked.

The character was specifically defined by Solomon as consisting of traits that include “honesty and trustworthiness that are more or less resistant to social or interpersonal pressures. But character is never fully formed and settled. It is always vulnerable to circumstances and trauma” (Solomon, 2003, p. 45). Further, Solomon confirmed sharing the same convictions with both Aristotle and Nietzsche who have emphasized virtue ethics as requiring a firm and strong idea on the concept of character; despite its malleable nature. Explicitly, Solomon affirmed that:

One's inclinations (one's emotions, in particular) form the essential core of the virtues, and… one's emotions are largely reactive, responsive to other people and the social situations in which one finds oneself. Virtue ethics need not, and should not, deny any of this (Solomon, 2003, p. 47).

Solomon’s apparent defense of this theory was premised on two works conducted by Gilbert Harman and John Doris, who disregarded the concept of character and averred that “a great deal of what we take as ‘character’ is in fact (and demonstrably) due to specific social settings that reinforce virtuous conduct” (Solomon, 2003, p. 45). He persisted in emphasizing the validity of character as a guiding force towards individuals’ behavior, in conjunction with external social and environmental forces.
  Read More