Introduction
The following paper is a review of the article “Can we teach character? An Aristotelian answer“ by Edwin Hartman. The aim of the review is to analyze main points of the article, validate the integrity of claims, and conclude on its value for business practices. The main point of the article is a suggested shift towards character-based virtues in business ethics studies and the resulting social benefits of such change. Despite minor inconsistencies, it provides strong support for the claim and outlines directions for further inquiry.
Background Information
In the purest theoretical sense, business ethics is a field that has a somewhat controversial status. On the one hand, its importance is widely recognized, and its relevance is often prioritized to assure good intentions behind business practices. On the other hand, there is no consensus regarding its actual influence and value for society. In other words, the majority expects good will and fairness behind business decisions, but few feel that business ethics guarantee such outcome. One of the reasons behind these doubts is the dubious effect of ethical principles which serve as one of the cornerstones of the studies on the matter. Many scholars feel that these principles are cumbersome, difficult to operate, easy to circumvent, and otherwise unreliable. The article by Edwin Hartman (2006) suggests that prioritizing character traits and values can serve as a viable alternative. To determine whether the author succeeds with substantiating the claim, the article is to be tested for consistency, academic integrity, and, most importantly, the presence of strong arguments to back the suggestion as well as a suggested direction to implement the proposed solution.
Summary
The author chooses the Aristotelian dialectic to mitigate the vagueness and inconsistency of a pure principle-based approach. The benefits of such shift can be described by the following example: a generous person is more likely to lend money to someone in need regardless of the likelihood of retrieving the loan later, and more importantly, the adherence to principle to help those in a dire situation (Hartman, 2006). Virtue (in this case – generosity) strengthens the intentions behind the action and, unlike the principle, is more likely to result in positive outcome. The author uses this point to suggest that the emphasis on values and character traits can be a more reliable and socially viable way of organizing the way business ethics are taught (Hartman, 2006).
According to him, such students are more likely to apply critical thinking, display higher consistency in their decisions, and ultimately produce better outcomes for themselves, their surrounding, and, by extension, the society on the whole. To support the latter claim, Hartman argues that “since human beings are social creatures, the good life, hence good character, involves living satisfactorily in a congenial community.” (2006, p. 70) which, by extension, results in mutual benefit. He also points to similarities between the general description of communities as suggested by Aristotle and his supporters and corporate environment, in particular, the interaction between stakeholders (mostly employers and employees) in an organization.
The author then proceeds to justify the moral grounds behind the Aristotelian approach. First, he points to findings of other scholars which suggest the primary role of values in decision making, which allows him to proceed to the conclusion that appropriately developed values will produce the desired and mutually beneficial results. He then builds up an argument that virtues which are recognized as positive in society are also the ones producing the best outcomes, including personal satisfaction of individuals who exert them (Hartman, 2006).
Finally, he raises the question of successful methods to develop the desired virtues. Considering the social nature of humanity, society is among the strongest factors which shape character (which, again, is consistent with known effects of corporate culture) (Hartman, 2006). However, since the possibilities of using passive exposure to (or active involvement in) the actual organizational culture for educational purposes are understandably limited, Hartman (2006) suggests using case studies as the closest alternative. According to him, they provide the necessary practical wisdom and serve as a source of information which can later be used to recognize similar settings and situations. Thus, instead of serving as a rigid framework, the suggested approach aims at combining the benefits of critical thinking with promoting socially acceptable values.
Evaluation
The main idea of the article is reframing the message behind existing educational material and shifting the emphasis from more formal and less applicable principles towards virtue development, which aligns with universal moral values without compromising efficiency of business practices. The article achieves the set goals by thoroughly analyzing the initial theoretical background by Aristotle, backing it by the findings of contemporary scholars, and pointing to the similarities between the general social setting suggested for dialectic principle and the culture of modern organizations. All of the findings used to support the claims by the author are properly referenced and contribute to the overall validity of suggestions. As a result, the paper is both persuasive and credible. It Is also worth mentioning that all of the evident weak points are appropriately listed, analyzed, and countered by appropriate solutions.
However, it is worth mentioning that at least part of the argument is built on sentiment and emotion, such as a wish to relive life pursuing more humane values supposedly expressed by retired businesspeople (Hartman, 2006). While it may be a sincere claim, it should not be used as evidence of academic validity. On some occasions, Hartman also treats certain virtues as final arguments, which understandably secures affection of the reader but can serve as a source of potential bias. Nevertheless, considering the intangible nature of the discussed matters, such approach can be justified and should not be viewed as major flaw – instead, it can be perceived as one possible direction for further inquiry. In fact, it aligns with my unsystematic observations of the gap between certain principles of self-regulating market and socially accepted norms, extending the scope of the article into the philosophical domain.
Conclusion
The article thoroughly substantiates the suggestion to prioritize character development in business ethics studies. Despite minor shortcomings, it offers an excellent overview of benefits of such approach and addresses most of the evident criticisms. However, it suggests only the general outline for a possible shift in education, so in-depth inquiry on effectiveness of the suggested approach is recommended to test the claims by the authors. Specifically, the role of values in decision making must be validated, and its weight determined before concrete changes are introduced in the curriculum. Besides, the presents a solid basis for inquiry on the role of virtues in society and raises an interesting point of the role of experience in recognition of ethically challenging situations.
Reference
Hartman, E. M. (2006). Can we teach character? An Aristotelian answer. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(1), 68-81.