Three Ethical Systems in Philosophy

AristotleÆs Eudaimonism is an ethical system that centers on the concept of happiness, but most specifically addresses the belief that the pursuit of the ôgoodö is manÆs most important activity (Holowchak, 2001). Happiness is not a product of action, but consists of an end in itself and a mode of living. Happiness and its pursuit is an activity or set of activities; ethics, in this system, aims not at knowledge of happiness, but rather at making men good.

Aristotle saw the pursuit of happiness as involving the acquisition and exercise of excellence at two distinct and related levels: one corresponding to excellence of thought and one corresponding to excellence of character. In developing excellence of character, the individual habitually acquires a constancy of character through cultivating virtuous activities and avoiding vice. Here, Aristotle makes reference to the normative and ethical effect of virtuous laws that serve men as a framework for identifying right actions and the good (Holowchak, 2001). In the world of business, a company itself is therefore charged with ensuring that a set of values that are ethically virtuous guide employee actins (Frank, 2002).

Aristotle also identifies excellence of thought as emerging over time through contemplation of eternal, ungenerated and incorruptible things (Holowchak, 2001). A life of action in which virtue is the key is therefore posited by Aristotle

. . .
reason must devote itself to the enjoyment of life and happiness as a part of the pursuit of contentment. At the same time, Kant argued that man must be truthful at all times from duty and must (under the categorical imperative) always treat others as an end and not as a means to an end (Blocker, 2001). In describing a Kantian approach to business ethics, Bowie (2002) makes reference to deontology in which respect for persons as a principle is understood as demanding that any business practice that puts money on a par with people is immoral. Similarly, the categorical and other Kantian imperatives are constructed as duties owed to both the self and others; a failure to execute these duties represents, in this ethical system, a failure of morality (Bowie, 2002). Kant argued that immoral actions were essentially self-defeating actions. A failure to tell the truth defeats oneÆs own purposes and exposes one to the potential of failure. As Bowie (2002) noted, the test of the categorical imperative becomes a principle of fair play. Underpinning all actions are ômaximsö that can be universalized; one such maxim is truth-telling, which for Kant was the most critical action that man could or should undertake. The test of the categ
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
AristotleÆs Eudaimonism, Immanuel Kant, Stuart Mill, Donaldson Werhane, Utilitarians Mill, Boston Pearson, Consequentialist Utilitarian, Prentice Hall, Utilitarianism Blocker, ethical system, References Blocker, donaldson werhane, bowie 2002, approach business ethics, approach business, business ethics, categorical imperative, holowchak 2001, upper saddle river, saddle river nj, cording eds, ed symposia, prentice hall, business upper saddle, issues business upper,
Approximate Word count = 1250
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Three Ethical Systems in Philosophy