An Inquiry into a Hypothetical Problem on Ethics

Kant, Virtue and Utility in Business Ethics:
An Inquiry into a Hypothetical Problem on Ethics
Name
University
Course/Subject
Professor
Date
Introduction
This paper seeks to use the theories of virtue ethicism (Platonian/ Aristotelian), Kantianism (deontologist) and utilitarianism (consequentialist) in light of a hypothetical ethical problem concerning the usage of unknowingly citizens for an anti-cancer drug experiment. The problem posed an ethical question which presents to us a choice: will we choose the greater good (that is, the greater welfare for the general population and generations to come) in the form of pushing the anti-cancer experiment forward, or will we choose the welfare of a smaller group (who of course are still humans) and content oneself in finalizing the drug without perfect assurance of its effectiveness and safety to the eventual users?
Utilitarianism
The two major thinkers of utilitarian ethics are John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. In sum, utilitarianism as a philosophy seeks to problematize the practical question of ‘what makes our decisions ethical or not?` As a consequentialist theory, utilitarianism proposes that the yardstick of any ethical decision can be found in the perceived consequences of each position; that is, the ethical bedrock of an action is measured according to the extent of which the action produces pleasure or happiness. Hence, utilitarianism focuses primarily on the ‘utility` of every ethical element and argues that ethical decisions must be first and foremost grounded on their eventual ‘effect` (Mill 2000, 92). The more happiness an action produces more than the other action, the more it proves to be the more ‘ethical choice`. In an effort to make the theory more precise, Bentham conceptualized the felicific calculus, an algorithm which seeks to offer a standard criteria in ‘measuring` happiness:
1 Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
2 Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
3 Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
4 Propinquity or remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur?
5 Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind.
6 Purity: The probability that it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
7 Extent: How many people will be affected?
Quite simply, utilitarianism is a reductionist theory, as it seeks to define (or in fact ‘reduce`) ethics and morality into a mere calculation of hedonistic affect. Nonetheless, the reduction of the ethic into pleasure or happiness makes sense, as Mill argues, for every human action is inclined to be directed towards achieving happiness rather than destruction or harm (Mill 2000, 91). Hence, as a general ethical rule, utilitarianism is geared towards measuring the aggregate happiness an action may produce to the greater number of concerned individuals. Needless to say, the theory remains firm in advocating the ‘greater good` rather succumbing to the lesser happiness aggregate of the minority.
Kant`s categorical imperative. The popular ‘Golden Rule` never became ‘golden` for plainly poetic reasons. ‘Do unto others what you want others to do unto you` achieved its popularity precisely for its universality. Such is also the appeal of Immanuel Kant`s deontological ethics. His categorical imperative takes on the form of three formulations:
(1) Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
(2) Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.
(3) Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.
Although Kant`s ethics resounds a faint echo of the Golden Rule, Kant`s categorical imperative seeks to construct a universal ethical rule that focuses on establishing ethical action as a ‘duty`, and not as a means to an end, as the utilitarianism have proposed (Kant 2000, 155) . In Kant`s conceptualization, the ethical categories are stable and non-violable, as every maxim have to be grounded on a rational, rather than intuitive or subjective basis. Hence, in the Kantian realm of ethics, lying for instance can never be justified for whatever reason, precisely because it is a moral duty to the person who will potentially be lied or deceived. In complete consistency to his second formulation, to tell the truth is universally an ethical end and will always be the more ethical actions regardless of its consequences (or its ‘utility` of happiness
The problem
The basic question is ‘Would I test the drug on humans in order to verify its effectiveness (or its ineffectiveness) on human subjects?` The question obviously begs the more fundamental inquiry, ‘Is testing drugs, especially with the possible adverse and even fatal effects on humans pressing as potential reality, ethical?` (Jacobsen 2000). Let us first enumerate certain scenarios and questions which lie within the question. First, the launching of the drug can still be done without testing it to any human subject. Of course, this is a double-edged risk. If the drug is indeed proven effective even without testing,, then Helpo Pharmaceuticals can gain enormous profit, overtake competitors in the pharmaceutical market and of course contribute to the general welfare to the populace who are waiting for an effective and sure-fire antidote against cancer. If the drug fails, it will be a serious backfire to the company itself which may lead to its possible, if not certain, demise. More gravely, the drug may cause harm to its users, possibly even death in immense proportions. Hence, this option is irrational, first because its potential pros and cons cannot be conceived in advance and more importantly because success or failure was left to a mere toss of a coin. Thus, the problem cannot be circumvented in a laconic, reckless fashion.
(1)Virtue ethicist position
To attempt to engage the question in a virtue ethicist position, it is imperative to summon ‘virtue` on behalf of the company as a fundamental issue. First, we must ask: what are the virtues that will be compromised if we push...