Virtue ethics is a normative ethical theory that focuses on the character of the agent doing a certain action rather than the goodness or badness of the action itself. Simply put, if one has a good, virtuous, ethical character, they will do good, ethical and virtuous things. This essay explores the situationist critiques of virtue ethics and the defence of virtue ethics in business ethics as presented by Gilbert Harman and Robert Solomon, respectively.
Gilbert Harman’s situationist critique of virtue ethics argues that ordinary moral thought is often insufficient and commits the fundamental attribution error. That is, we ignore the situational or circumstantial factors of a given situation and assume that distinctive behaviors are due to an agent’s distinguishing character traits. Harman believes that there is no evidence that people have character traits and by the same token, virtues or vices. As a whole, Harman rejects folk morality derived from contemporary social psychology as it places too much weight on assumed internal characteristics, ignoring external forces. Harman instead believes that individuals behave in distinct ways due to a difference in their situations rather than differences in character. The Milgram experiment is an example used by Harman to further his argument. The experiment involved a subject inflicting increasingly intense electric shocks to victim-learners if they answered a question wrong. However, unknown to the subject, these victims were actually assistants to the experimenter. As the shock reached 300 volts, the learners would plead the subject to stop, however the authority or the experimenter, would urge the subject to continue. This experiment was conducted to observe how far subjects would go in these conditions and abide by the experimenter’s instructions. In the end, almost every subject gave the maximum voltage. One would generally attribute this result to the subjects’ character flaws. However, this is an unfitting assumption as the context of the situation is neglected. Harman argues that at times, it was difficult for subjects to find a rationale to stop at a particular point, as they jump very narrowly from harmless, unobjectionable behaviour to extremely punishing behaviour. It was also challenging for the subject to quit from the experiment itself as their pleas to stop were rejected by the experimenter at least four times. Harman argues that we commit the fundamental attribution error after succumbing to the confirmation bias. One tends to look for information that confirms our own hypothesis, while downplaying any evidence against it. Harman also reflects on the Gestalt consideration of figure and ground and argues that one tends to pay more attention to the figure or the actor rather than the ground or situation. The situationist critique of virtue ethics according to Harman stems from the belief that there is no empirical support for the existence of character traits. Instead of using character traits to explain behavior, one should focus on how individuals differ in situations and their perceptions of situations. By focusing on solely character traits, misunderstandings and hostility can develop towards a person or a group of people rather than developing a solution to a problem by concentrating on the situation in depth.
Robert Solomon responds to Harman’s article by defending virtue ethic’s role in business ethics. Solomon argues that character is central to the idea of being a good person in business. It fills in the gaps between institutional behaviourism and personal autonomy which helps us resist pressures that go against our own moral principles. According to Solomon, character produces a conscience. Solomon suggests that it is not the lack of character that defines an individual’s response to a situation but the result of a conflict between character traits. Character traits that are often practiced, are more established and well-cultivated compared to other traits that are more spoken of rather than used. These neglected traits have little opportunity to be put to the test. Solomon’s alternative explanation for the results of the Milgram experiment was that it showed how foolish important virtues like conformity and obedience can be. That is, despite having a typically respectable virtue, one commits a tragic act. As such, there is no personal deficit in character when committing acts like the subject in the Milgram experiment. The experiment itself is a demonstration of the consistency and stability of those virtuous traits. Regarding Solomon’s belief of practiced versus neglected traits, the Milgram experiment required the character trait of compassion to be had by the subject. Compassion is often little tested in non-routine ways and as such, may not be as well practiced as the trait of obedience, which we must exercise consistently in our daily lives. In other words, we are capable of inhumane behaviour in situations where we are facing a battle between trained and untrained traits. Harman’s conclusion of situation, not character, as the driving force of decision making is challenged by Solomon, who argues two people in the same situation tend to act differently. This is a result of different backgrounds or social classes which leads to distinctive character traits that influence decision making. Solomon concludes that circumstances and character cannot be separated and used as opposing explanations of virtuous or vicious behavior. At times, corporate employees may feel obligated to commit a conforming act due to external pressures and corporate policies, despite being personally morally questionable. However, this does not mean that character is non-existent. Character is rather developed and maintained via dynamic interactions between individuals and their peers. These interactions allow for the development of virtues which encourages individuals to remain in situations where their virtues are sustained and strengthened. Solomon believes the solution to conflict is mutual forgiveness when ethnic hatred is present and the creation of mediating institutions that help people acquire and practice the virtues that are not as often rehearsed.
Both Harman and Solomon lay out important points that require deep thought and analysis. In my opinion, Harman presented valid evidence, however I disagree with his central theme of there being an absence of character. Like Solomon’s response to Harman, I believe that one’s character and main virtues are the driving force behind decisions. It was the virtue of obedience that caused the Milgram experiment subjects to continue administering shock. It is the virtue of punctuality that is the grounds for one to rush past a person in need. As such, I believe virtue ethics plays a role in business ethics. Nevertheless, I consider it necessary to teach virtue ethics in conjecture with critical thinking and thought analysis as it is imperative that individuals not blindly obey those in positions of power due their virtues but rather make the decision for themselves no matter then situation.