Solutions of Virtue Ethics and the Parable of the Sadhu

Using a moral theory or a set of moral theories, could you argue that McCoys conclusion that the
hikers actions were blameworthy is justified?

McCoys conclusion can be best justified only through agent-based theory rather than rule-based
theory. Virtue ethics (an agent-based theory) emphasis that the ethics is about the character of the agent
and it answers the question what one ought to be? It says that as long as our actions make us virtuous or
as long as we exhibit virtue in our actions we are a virtuous person. Thus actions performed by a virtuous
person are morally right. In our case, the action of not ensuring safety of the life of Sadhu was not
virtuous. Hikers just let Sadhu on his own. They definitely did not choose the reasonable middle ground
(Generosity or Kindness). They went on to choose one of the vices Stinginess by not donating enough
of what they could have.

Furthermore, Rights and duties also justify the conclusion of McCoy. Positive right dictates that it
is the duty of a society (generally) to help the holder of the negative right (to life etc.) with whatever he or
she needs to pursue his/her interests. Therefore, hikers were supposed to protect the negative right of
sadhu i.e. right to life.

Moreover, Ethics of care tell us that we live in a web of relationships and we should protect and
preserve these relationships. Communitarian ethics in this theory is relevant to our case. It tells us that our
web of relationships is not just limited to our family but to the society we live in, its culture, practices and
history. Therefore, being in the culture of sadhus for so long, hikers should have cared for him more than
that they had. Ethics of care thus supports the conclusion of McCoy.

Contrary to these theories is the theory of John Rawls. John Rawls difference principle applies
here. Lets assume that everyone (hikers and sadhu) were in the state of poverty and hikers found sadhu in
this condition. Then, in this case, the death of sadhu was more certain in fact more miserable. On the
other hand difference principle says that inequality is good for the poor that is why we have seen that due
to inequality hikers were able to give food and clothes to Sadhu. Thus hikers cannot be held responsible
in this.

Other theories such as Kantian and utilitarian also do not justify McCoys conclusion. Kantian rights
perspective would say that sadhu should not have been helped. Kant says that we should treat humans as
they have freely and rationally consented to be treated. (Velasquez, concepts and cases). Kant says that we
should contribute to each others ability so that we can purse what we have freely chosen. Sadhu freely
and rationally chose to travel almost naked so hikers were not morally bounded to help him. Kant further
says that if the maxim of your action has a universality and reversibility then your action is morally right.
The maxim was to save as much lives as possible or to finish their once in a life time journey. This maxim
of hikers action for not helping much has both of the characteristics. Therefore it was best to help sadhu
as much as they could but not to the extent that their own lives or objective is sacrificed. This particular
point is also backed by utilitarian perspective which says the greatest good for the greatest number.
Saving more peoples lives, avoiding pain that would have gotten by helping sadhu and passing the hill
generated more utility than what would have been generated by only saving sadhus life hence the
conclusion of McCoy is not justified.

So, we can see that the result produced is not satisfactory (misery of Sadhu) which shows that these
theories cannot resolve the conflicts that may arise. If the telos (reason) was to fulfill the journey then
obviously McCoys conclusion is false. No one seems to be at fault, everyone helped to the best of his
capability and capacity.

Explain the relevance of the story to the corporate world? How much must
we give of ourselves? And how do we prepare our organizations and
institutions so they will respond appropriately in a crisis? How do we
influence them if we do not agree with their point of view?

One of the most important aspects in which this story is relevant to the
corporate world is the identification of an ethical issue especially under stress and
turbulent conditions. All the hikers except for the Stephen were unable to identify
the issue as the ethical one. It also points out to negative consequences of the
differences in cultures within a group or organization. The group was unable to
support and understand each other due to cultural differences. The story further
points out to the lack of leadership in the group that sometimes also happen in the
corporate world. This lack of leadership is due to weak value system. Value system
is very crucial to any organizations success. This not only shapes your corporate
culture but also provides some leadership as well by transcending the personal
values of managers. All these result in a complete solid plan and strong social
consensus during stressful and turbulent times.

To find solutions for these crises we have to start from the first process: How to
identify an issue (ethical issue to be precise)? It is to be noted that although,
sometimes, people do identify an issue but they perceive it differently from their co-
workers thus creating difficulty in having a social consensus during crises.
Sensemaking-intuitive model (SIM) helps us to identify the issue while eliminating
individual differences as well. SIM proposes that managers make decisions in
automatic and affective ways without using much of their cognitive process (moral
reasoning), therefore we should develop their automatic responses (intuition)
(Jones, 2014). Experiences, training and qualification develop intuition.
Organizations should encourage group discussions so that they not only acquire
information about others interpretations (through social anchoring) but also to
widen their own interpretations.

Jones also emphasis on the importance of recognizing an ethical issue from an

issue-contingent perspective. His model states that moral intensity can influence
different processes of moral reasoning especially the recognition of moral issue.
Factors such as social consensus, proximity or consequences of an action can be
used to identify an ethical issue. For example, McCoy could have used the temporal
immediacy to recognize the intensity of an issue.

Moreover as we saw that the hikers lacked moral reasoning skill due to weak
cognitive and connation processes that is why they could not figure out an ethical
issue. Hannah, Avolio, Mays article Moral maturation and Moral connation shed
lights on how one can develop hi/her moral reasoning. It states that by developing
capacities to moral maturation and connation one can easily become better at
moral reasoning. Moral maturation includes moral complexity, metacognition and
moral identity that can be developed through social learning, solving exercises in
group that enhance ethical moral reasoning, motivational speeches (for moral
identity) and exposure to role models. Metacognitive ability can be enhanced
through teaching techniques to process moral dilemmas. All these developments
will be helpful in stressful situations and once the high level mangers start taking
ethical decisions their value system and culture will automatically be improved.

It the end question remains how much must we give of ourselves? Virtue ethics
answers this question by saying that we should act as long our acts make us
morally good human beings. So long our integrity and dignity is not sacrificed we
should help others or obey the authority figures. If we think that obeying your
manager is unethical and will sacrifice your virtuous personality, then this is the
point where you should stop acting and giving any more.

Moreover, we can influence others into doing ethical action by enhancing our
moral efficacy (Hannah, Avolio, and May). Moral efficacy means overcoming barriers
imposed by external (means) and internal (self).The higher the moral efficacy, the
higher will be the moral motivation to do moral action. For example, Stephen could
have convinced McCoy and others and started helping sadhu alone (by overcoming
internal threats or fears). This might have realized others to help as well. Obviously
when the lives of two persons were at stake McCoy would have easily assessed the
issue as an ethical one (moral intensity increases as the consequences of an action
increases). One person can shape the values or culture of an organization indirectly
(if not directly) by getting into the leadership role because at the end of the day its
we, managers or employers, who shape up the corporate culture.

Is it possible to offer sound alternatives to the moral failures that the

story cites? We cannot quit our jobs over every ethical dilemma, but if we
continually ignore our sense of values, who do we become?

Theories such as Kantian, utilitarian or rights and duties cannot provide a

sound alternative to McCoy story. Virtue ethics offer sound alternatives to the moral
failure that the story cites. It sees moral issue from the agents point of view, his
character and his shared set of value that he holds with others for the stake in the
success of the company. McCoy regrets that he missed the once in a life time
opportunity of becoming a hero and thus of becoming the virtuous person. He
regrets that they could not help Sadhu more had they formed the group. This is to
note that although everyone did their best but they could have done better which
means there is a distinction between what they have done (merely good) and what
they could have done (excellence). This can be applied to any business situation.
Only the idea of virtue can explain the difference between what is merely good and
what is excellent. Only the idea of virtue can explain the regrets Stephen and McCoy
were going through after that incident. The problem basically lies in the institution
because this is where we acquire and learn these virtues. Virtue-ethic model states
that society share a vision of good life. Therefore only a virtue-ethic model
illustrates the importance of virtues to live a god life. These virtues can be learned
through institutions and by practicing good habits into various communal roles that
we play. These virtues can then become a part of our habits and virtuous character.
Aquinas further added to virtue theories the aspects of hope, faith and charity, thus
McCoy and others could have helped sadhu out of charity.

We cannot quit from every ethical dilemma that we face, it would be

equivalent to one of the vices of not doing anything (less) and it will make us a
vicious person. So, what is the limit of involvement then? Velasquez in his book
Concepts and cases presents objection to business ethics (Velasquez, 18, 20). He
says that law of agency specifies individuals to obey and bound them to act on
behalf of others with whom they sign an agreement. However this agreement is
only limited to ethical issues. If you are involved in a situation where your values are
sacrificed then it is better to quit that job. You should establish the moral standards
and norms and shape the culture of an organization in a way that regards individual
values. This means that we should strive for the development of our interpersonal
skills. We should develop our moral reasoning processes and try to convince others
about the intensity of an issue. That is what good leaders do. If you cannot take
decisions instantly, your enterprise can lose. As McCoy said if a manager is
indecisive and spends time trying to figure out the good thing to do, the enterprise
may be lost. Scott Sonenshein said Managers take actions first and then try to
explain and justify them. Effective manager requires high level of intuition and
reasoning to master this ethical model. Therefore managers need to develop their
intuitions through experience and training etc. to tackle ethical dilemmas efficiently
and effectively.