[35] 1. Consider the trolley problem again. Does deontology provide any guidance towards an ethical solution? Why or why not?

2. Is the maxim I will cheat on my taxes to save money universalizable?

3. Is the maxim I will cheat on my taxes to deny the government funds universalizable?

[37] 1. Consider a moral exemplar in your personal life. Why did you choose them? What is their role in your life or society? What virtues do they demonstrate?

WHAT IS "DEONTOLOGY"? Deontology focuses on rights and duties rather than outcomes, as in utilitarianism. Two deontological principles are (1) consider what would occur if everyone were to take the action you are considering, and (2) treat people as ends, not just as means to an end. In contrast to the utilitarian perspective, the deontological view presented in the writings of Immanuel Kant purports that having a moral intent and following the right rules is a better path to ethical conduct than achieving the right results. A deontologist like Kant is likely to believe that ethical action arises from doing one's duty and that duties are defined by rational thought. Duties, according to Kant, are not specific to particular kinds of human beings but are owed universally to all human beings. Thus, using someone as a means, rather than an end unto themselves, is unethical. Kant also uses "universalizing" as a form of rational thought that assumes the inherent equality of all human beings. For Kantian thinkers, this basic principle of equality means that we should be able to universalize any particular law or action to determine whether it is ethical. For example, if you were to consider misrepresenting yourself on a resume for a particular job you really wanted and you were convinced that doing so would get you that job, you might be very tempted to do so. (What harm would it be? you might ask yourself. When I have the job, I can prove that I was perfect for it, and no one is hurt, while both the employer and I are clearly better off as a result!) Kantian ethicists would answer that your chosen course of action should be a universal one-a course of action that would be good for all persons at all times. There are two requirements for a rule of action to be universal: consistency and reversibility. Consider reversibility: if you make a decision as though you didn't know what role or position you would have after the decision, you would more likely make an impartial one-you would more likely choose a course of action that would be most fair to all concerned, not just you. Again, deontology requires that we put duty first, act rationally, and give moral weight to the in- In considering whether to lie on your resume, reversibility requires you to actively imagine both that you were the employer in this situation and that you were another well-qualified applicant who lost the job because someone else padded his resume with false accomplishments. If the consequences of such an exercise of the imagination are not appealing to you, your action is probably not ethical. The second requirement for an action to be universal is the search for consistency. This is more abstract. A deontologist would say that since you know you are telling a lie, you must be willing to say that lying, as a general, universal phenomenon, is acceptable. But if everyone lied, then there would be no point to lying, since no one would believe anyone. It is only because honesty works well for society as a whole and is generally practiced that lying even becomes possible! That is, lying cannot be universalized, for it depends on the preexistence of honesty. To be very specific, Kant might suggest asking whether if everyone did as you are considering doing, would you still be able to achieve your aims? To work through this analysis, you should consider what can be termed a "maxim": a statement of what you are doing, and why you are doing it. "I will eat this food, because I am hungry" is a simple maxim. You should notice immediately how different deontology is than utilitarianism! To a utilitarian, the motivation for doing something is irrelevant, because they only care about outcomes. Here, intention matters, and a maxim is universalizable if, when everyone followed it, you could still achieve your intention. Consider an example. Suppose one's maxim was "I will cheat on an exam, to pass this class." Is the why (pass) achievable if everyone follows the do (cheat)? Probably not, because if everyone planned to cheat, nobody would study and learn the material. Thus, cheating on an exam to pass a class is not universalizable, and hence not ethical. Similar demonstrations can be made for actions such as polluting, breaking promises, and committing many crimes. But these are the easy cases for Kantian thinkers. In the gray areas of life as it is lived, the consistency test is often difficult to apply. If breaking a promise would save a life, then Kantian thought becomes difficult to apply. If some amount of pollution can allow employment and the harm is minimal or distant, Kantian thinking is not all that helpful. Finally, we should note that the well-known Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, "emphasizes the easier of the two universalizing requirements: practicing reversibility ("How would I like it if someone did this to me?"). WHAT IS "VIRTUE ETHICS"? Virtue ethics considers one's role in society, asks what virtues are necessary to achieve that role, and then how to actively develop those virtues. Virtue ethics has received increasing attention over the past decades, particularly in contrast to utilitarian and deontological approaches to ethics. Virtue theory emphasizes the value of virtuous qualities rather than formal rules or useful results. Aristotle is often recognized as the first philosopher to advocate the ethical value of certain qualities, or virtues, in a person's character. As LaRue Hosmer has noted, Aristotle saw the goal of human existence as the active, rational search for excellence, and excellence requires the personal virtues of honesty, truthfulness, courage, temperance, generosity, and high-mindedness. This pursuit is also termed "knowledge of the good" in Greek philosophy. [ [1] Aristotle believed that all activity was aimed at some goal or perceived good and that there must be some ranking that we do among those goals or goods. Happiness may be our ultimate goal, but what does that mean, exactly? Aristotle rejected wealth, pleasure, and fame and embraced reason as the distinguishing feature of humans, as opposed to other species. And since a human is a reasoning animal, happiness must be associated with reason. Thus happiness is living according to the active (rather than passive) use of reason. The use of reason leads to excellence, and so happiness can be defined as the active, rational pursuit of personal excellence, or virtue. Aristotle named fourteen virtues: (1) courage, particularly in battle; (2) temperance, or moderation in eating and drinking; (3) liberality, or spending money well; (4) magnificence, or living well; (5) pride, or taking pleasure in accomplishments and stature; (6) high-mindedness, or concern with the noble rather than the petty; (7) unnamed virtue, which is halfway between ambition and total lack of effort; (8) gentleness, or concern for others; (9) truthfulness; (10) wit, or pleasure in group discussions; (11) friendliness, or pleasure in personal conduct; (12) modesty, or pleasure in personal conduct; (13) righteous indignation, or getting angry at the right things and in the right amounts: and (14) iustice. From a modern perspective, some of these virtues seem old-fashioned or even odd. Magnificence, for example, is not something we commonly speak of. Three issues emerge: (1) How do we know what a virtue is these days? (2) How useful is a list of agreed-upon virtues anyway? (3) What do virtues have to do with companies, particularly large ones where various groups and individuals may have little or no contact with other parts of the organization? As to the third question, whether corporations can "have" virtues or values is a matter of lively debate. A corporation is obviously not the same as an individual. But there seems to be growing agreement that organizations do differ in their practices and that these practices are value driven. If all a company cares about is the bottom line, other values will diminish or disappear. Quite a few books have been written in the past twenty years that emphasize the need for businesses to define their values in order to be competitive in today's global economy. [ [2] To apply a virtue framework, first consider what role you or your company plays in society. Then, consider what virtues are necessary to fulfill that role. For instance, to successfully manage a large team at work, the virtues of courage, justice, and friendliness listed above might all play roles. Finally, consider what can be done to actively foster or develop those virtues within yourself or your entity. How can you, as a manager, become more courageous, act with more justice, or be more friendly? It may be helpful to think of a "moral examplar" (someone who is an example of great virtue) in this area who may provide guidance. The focus on developing active virtues is a very different approach from utilitarianism (which cared only about outcomes) and deontology (which decided right and wrong based on philosophical notions of rights)