This analysis centers upon the case of professor Jones, who, being short of money and unable to bear growing expenses, decides to set up a website. This website allows students to get their works done by adjunct professors of the university for payment, part of which goes into professor Jones’ pocket. Within this work, setting up such a website will be evaluated as a means for professor Jones to make ends meet. The two theories used to assess this action will be natural law theory and virtue ethics theory.
Natural law theory evaluates an action through a series of tests that focus on assessing its intent and effects. When the overall benefits are compared against general harms, it is imperative to look at which side outweighs. The judgment is passed based on the prevalence of benefits or harms discovered in the process. Virtue ethics theory seeks to find a golden middle, considering whether an act tends to go to extremes or is reasonably balanced (Ethical Issues: Ethics and Society). The balanced action is considered to be correct. Another test performed within this theory is evaluating an agent’s character and his merits and vices. The final judgment is passed on the combination of the “golden middle” test results and character evaluation.
The first step of analysis within the natural law theory is to see whether an action is permissible. Since there are no laws against providing students with works for some money, professor Jones’ act is permissible. The positive effects of the action are that Jones and other adjunct professors have more money to cover their expenses. Adverse effects are that students do not work at given topics and do not get the knowledge they need for their future professions. Negative effects stem directly from beneficial effects since if the students did everything by themselves, there would be no job and no money for professor Jones. Within natural law theory, Jones’ intention cannot be described as good since his scheme does not promote knowledge but robs students of it. The harmful effect is intended here and can not be described as a ‘side effect.’ The overall picture shows that only one test is passed (the action is permissible), while the other two tests are failed. Thus, the harms considerably outweigh the benefits, and it can be concluded that within natural law theory, the action is bad.
Virtue ethics theory asks whether the action is balanced or falls to extremes. If Jones’s action is performed to excess, students would have all their works done for them by professors, which would result in a drastic decline in knowledge. The vices associated with this extreme are laziness and ignorance. On the other hand, if the action was performed to a deficit, no considerable harm would come out of it except the lack of money in professor Jones’ pockets. The vice associated with the deficit is poverty on the part of adjunct professors. However, the ignorance of a large number of students can not be balanced against the deprivation of few, and there are other means to earn money than this action. So, the action falls to the extreme of excess, which makes it wrong. The second step in virtue ethics theory is to look at the agent of the action. The agent is not virtuous as he wants to earn money by subverting the value of education. His vices are greediness, lack of social responsibility, and unscrupulousness of means.
Under natural law theory, the action is wrong as its negative effects outweigh its benefits, and Jones’ intention can be described as harmful. Under virtue ethics theory, the action is wrong because it falls to the extreme of excess, and Jones indulges in the vices of greediness and unscrupulousness. Both theories agree that the act is wrong since the wrongs outweigh the rights of the action.