Course: Business Ethics
Source/Foundation of the researched argument:
In what manner would a philosopher such as Aristotle or Nietzsche conduct modern business? Traditional management practices suggest that many companies would not consider this option. Aristotle and Nietzsche developed radically different yet complementary approaches to life that are urgently needed today to restore trust in business and assist in answering pressing organizational questions related to empowering and engaging workers, leadership, values, and performance. According to Aristotle, virtues – which make a life well lived – are rather obvious. Among them were friendship, generosity, courage, and resilience. Despite this, it still makes intuitive sense to us today. However, they are meaningless without context. A word like courage is worthless if we do not understand its meaning in a given circumstance. As Aristotle puts it here, we must discover what he calls ‘the middle way.’ In other words, this is the middle ground between excess and deficiency, going too far or too little. Therefore, the virtue of courage lies between rashness and cowardice, the vices of excess and drought, respectively. The question is, however, how do we find it?
As Aristotle explains, we discover the truth by using our reason, honed by education: exploring how we and others might behave in a given situation, experimenting, reflecting on the results, and trying again. According to Aristotle, the ideal workplace would be one where individuals can use reason and develop their humanity. The Nichomachean Ethics asks what differentiates a person – a human being who is fully human – from an animal or enslaved individual. An enslaved person is not free to make choices; Animals live hand-to-mouth and suffer greatly. By contrast, a flourishing individual has learned what is good and is free to make appropriate choices. The contemporary concept of empowerment would have been satisfactory to Aristotle, but he would have had second thoughts about its application in many of today’s workplaces. According to Aristotle, this is a modern form of slavery; rational judgment has ceased to exist. It is also contagious. The term ‘groupthink’ originated from Yale University scholar Irving Janis. The author described a situation in which all group members agree to a course of action with which they privately disagree but never voice their disagreement publicly. According to Nietzsche, the key to flourishing as an individual is to rise above the herd. In his view, living life to the fullest extent possible reaches the highest level of human potential.
Those in power speak of values and even commission consultants to run workplaces so that all employees know what agreements to uphold. Typically, they say little about individual flourishing and a lot about teamwork, humility, compliance, and engagement. Meanwhile, everyone is aware that those who reach the top exhibit few of these qualities, yet, as competent employees, they nevertheless attend practical classes. Are there any lessons that philosophy can impart to business? Instead of revolutionary change, the Aristotelians advocated stability, coordination, and progressive improvement. As a result of reading this article, I have come to understand that in an organization, it is essential to design it around the individual rather than the other way around. A business can help its employees reaches their full potential. According to Nietzsche, the primary purpose of life is to achieve one’s highest self. From a stakeholder perspective, this could be considered; furthermore, stakeholder theorists argue that the rich were born into it, which is not a valid argument. According to Nietzsche, only if an individual reaches the highest self can the person pass on the “advantage” that stakeholders claim to future generations, which can be identified as a “long-term” outlook.
________________________
Citations and external sources:
___
Rubric:
RESEARCHED ARGUMENT
The Researched Argument, 10-12 pages, double-spaced, which brings together your
understanding of the scholarship on a specific (business) ethical issue and your ability to articulate a response to that problem, should exhibit your ability to:
1) invent a sophisticated research question, problem, or issue,
2) undertake in-depth research that informs the question at hand,
3) derive a plausible soft-claim that seriously addresses your problem, and
4) suggest an even better question that prompts further thinking on the matter. Typically, the 1st Section of your writing includes the following:
A Set-up for your Research Question, a brief lay-of-the-land narrative that provides a broad descriiption of the problem at hand. This general comment shows what brings you to the
issue, often by setting down the current scholarly debate or describing a scene from a film, book, or news event. “The themes of citizenship and community are being discussed in many quarters of the left today. This is undoubtedly a consequence of the crisis of class politics and indicates the
growing awareness of the need for a new form of identification around which to organize the forces struggling for a radicalization of democracy.” The Problem, as you see it, hints at the Research Question itself. This brief narrative
frames the issue at hand so that you can then ask a specific question for your research. “I believe that the question of political identity is crucial and that the attempt to construct citizens’ identities is one of the more important tasks of democratic politics. But there are many different versions of citizenship and vital issues are at stake in their
contest. The way we define citizenship is intimately linked to the kind of society and political community we want.”
The Research Question (#1 above) which can take the form of a stated problem (“In this essay I want to interrogate the ways ideology informs our identity-constructs”), or an actual question (“In what ways does ideology determine our identity?) This is the most critical component of your writing.
“How should we understand citizenship when our goal is a radical and plural democracy? Such a project requires the creation of a chain of equivalence among democratic struggles and, therefore, the creation of a common political identity among democratic subjects. For the term citizens to actually mean this and function in this way, what conditions must it meet?”
The Research Method and a glimpse of your Researched Argument. This optional narrative shows how you plan to address the question through research, and how your argument will emerge from your findings.
“These are the problems that I will address, and I will argue that the key task is how to conceive of the nature of the political community under modern democratic conditions.
I consider that we need to go beyond the conceptions of citizenship of both the liberal and civic republican tradition while building on their respective strengths.”
Typically, the 2nd Section of your writing includes:The Research (#2 above), which functions exclusively to address and inform your understanding of the question so that you can intelligently and carefully construct your soft-claim
This is the section in which you play an intellectual “ping-pong match. Pose your question to the scholarly world (journals, books, culture, etc) What you read in your research (scholarly ideas) is then pinged to you. What you process in your own mind (your re-construction of scholarship) is then ponged back to the scholarly world through different lenses. Re-ping and Re-pong are as necessary. This section becomes the bulk of your writing (usually 6-7 references). Typically, the 3rd Section of your writing includes: When all is said and done in terms of your thoughtful research about the question at hand, the 3rd
the section serves as the place for you to state your now-informed Soft Claim (#3 above) [and to offer further implications for new research on the topic (#4 above)].
The “conclusion” you reach (your soft claim) has to do with the research you have amassed and is, therefore, not a sum-up (please!!!). It is a soft statement of your “position” on the issue
now that you have processed the research. It is by no means a definitive or absolute statement. It is your informed claim—it is your researched argument. Typically, the 4th Section of your writing includes: By offering Further Implications, you provide scholars who read your work a chance to think more about the issue and perhaps even advance your claims. Based on your Soft Claim (#3 above), you can now suggest to your readers/scholars the “things to think about” to further advance the discussion regarding your initial question.
(These further implications are to be taken up outside the pages of your essay).
(Please use 1 of the 3 standard style guides for your essay—MLA, APA, or Chicago Manual)
(Attach an Abstract as a separate page, single-spaced, with your essay—it should immediately precede your full text—it is not counted, however, as a page of your actual essay).
(Attach a Works Cited or Works Consulted or Bibliography page with your essay—it should immediately follow your full text—it is not counted, however, as a page of your actual essay).
