AOL 1-4 and Cases

Handout 3: Nelson Mandela (1)Handout 4: GAIL pipeline blast kills (2), Possible closing of Nokia Plant in Chennai (3)Handout 5: Panama Nature Fresh LTD. (4), The horrors of Chicken farms (5)Handout 6: Managing Trusting Relationships in Indian Organized Retailing (6), Bain sues EY over $60-m loss in Lilliput Kidswear (7)Handout 7: Dassault Aviation and the Defense Ministry, India, (8) Arun Jaitley, Modiy’s Chanakya (9)Handout 8: The Glory and Decline of Merrill Lynch: Violation of rights and Duties? (10), The Debacle of “Paid News” Media in India (11), Vedanta (12)Handout 10: India’s Superrich in 2014 (13), Dubious Outcomes at Starbucks Coffee Company (14)

AOL 1

Table 2: Assurance of Learning Model One (AOL 1): A Descriptive-Analytic Problem Resolution Model

Domain Search/Identify

Analysis:Key Questions

Type of Analysis

EthicalAnalysis

Key facts, Key figures,Key data, Key information

What? Who? Where? When?How? How often? And with whom?

Descriptive Is your search for facts, figures, data and information objective and unbiased?

Key subjects, Key objects,Key properties andKey events (SOPE analysis),

Who are the key subjects, what are the key objects, with what properties and events? Where, when, how, how often and with whom do SOPE operate?

Descriptive Is your search for SOPE honest, objective and unbiased? That is, are you using the right SOPE for ethical analysis? How do you ensure this?

Timeline of key events What, when and how often of key SOPE constituents.

Descriptive Is your timeline accurate and factual?

Explanations of SOPE?Key explanation?

Why SOPE? Why did it happen? Why not?Major Antecedents of SOPE?Major Determinants of SOPE?Major Concomitants of SOPE?Key Circumstances of SOPE?Critical Contingencies of SOPE?

Analytic Is your explanation of SOPE valid, useful, objective and unbiased?Are you looking for the right antecedents, determinants and concomitants of SOPE?Are you explaining SOPE away via circumstances and contingencies?

Analyze SOPE Relations between SOPE components or any two or more key events:Sequences? Associations? Correlation?Necessary Conditions?Sufficient Conditions?N & S Conditions? Co-causes?

Analytic Are you looking for the right relations between SOPE components?Are you projecting, overstating or understating such relations?

Classify SOPECategorize SOPECharacterize SOPE

Any analogies?Key categorization?Key characterization?

Analytic Are your SOPE classification, categorization and characterization based on right analogies, valid and meaningful?

Problem IdentificationKey Problems?Underlying key problem?

What are the controllable variables (X)?What are the uncontrollable variables (Y)?To what extent Y dominates X?

Analytic Have you identified the key problem with most X and Y?Have you assessed “control” objectively?

Problem Formulation How do define X?How do you define Y?

Analytic Have you defined the variables rightly?

Problem specification How is X related to Y?How is X related to components of X?How is Y related to components of

Analytic Have you specified the relations between X and Y objectively?

Y?Problem solutions alternatives?

How many solutions can you identify?How do you rate them in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, sales earnings, market share, profits, growth, development, and market valuation?

Analytic Are your solution-alternatives to the problem mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive (MECE)?

Optimal problem solution

How do you know the solution selected is optimal and not sub-optimal?What are its tradeoffs?

Analytic Does optimality include social, ethical, moral, spiritual and human dimensions?

Optimal strategy How do you strategize the optimal solution?

Analytic Is your strategy legal, social, ethical and moral? Hence desirable for all?

Optimal implementation

Are you implementing the final solution alternative timely and correctly?

Is your strategy implementation legal, ethical and moral?

Consequences Hence what?What are the major consequences to each stakeholder?

Analytic Are you rightly and fairly assessing consequences to every major stakeholder? How justly do you deal with the harmful consequences, especially to the powerless and the marginalized?

Learning What have you learnt from AOL1? Reflective How can you reinforce good learning?

Table 3: Assurance of Learning Model Two (AOL 2): An Ethical-Moral Analytic Problem Formulation-Resolution Model

Problem Domain Exploration


Type of Analysi

s

EthicalAnalysis

Who are the key subjects, what are the key objects,properties and events (SOPE) in the problem domain?

What do SOPE say and why? What do you observe? Where are SOPE and why? When did you notice this problem and why? How did it come about and how often? And with whom?

DescriptiveObserva-tional

Is your SOPE observational and analytic search honest, objective and unbiased?

What are the basic legal, ethical and moral issues involved in the SOPE domain?

Why do you consider them legal, ethical or moral? Are there other legal, ethical and moral issues you have not identified?

AnalyticInvesti-gational

What are the implications and ramifications of these legal, ethical and moral issues?

History or narrative of key SOPE elements

Whom do you include or exclude in the SOPE narrative and why? With what consequences, and to whom?

DescriptiveAnalyticHistoricalNarrative

Is your SOPE narrative, history and analysis fair, accurate and factual?

Explanation of the SOPE narrative from an ethical and moral perspective

Why? Why did it happen? What laws not complied with? What ethical codes violated? What moral principles compromised? What brought this about?Major social and cultural antecedents?Major social & cultural determinants?Major social & cultural concomitants?Key socio-economic and competitive circumstances? Regulation-constraints?Free market resource constraints?

Market Analytic

Is your SOPE narrative and explanation exclusive, inclusive, valid, useful, objective and unbiased?Are you looking for the right antecedents, determinants and concomitants?Are you explaining away the legal, ethical and moral violations via peripheral circumstances and contingencies?

Analyze SOPE from an ethical and moral perspective

How are SOPE elements ethically and morally interrelated? Are they mere random or arbitrary sequences or associations? Are there strong and significant correlations among SOPE that exonerate guilt?

Analytic Are you looking for the right relations and interdependencies between SOPE elements? Are you projecting, overstating or understating such relations and interdependencies?

Characterize SOPE from an ethical and moral perspective

Any analogies to past experiences across industries? How and why do you categorize SOPE thus? How do you characterize SOPE interdependencies?

Analytic Is your analogy, categorization or characterization objective, reliable, valid and meaningful?

Problem SOPE Characterization from an ethical and moral viewpoint

How do you characterize your SOPE analysis ethically and morally? Why and why not? What are the major ethical concepts and constructs involved or should be included in your SOPE analysis & why?

EthicalAnalytic

Have you identified the key ethical, moral and social problem?How did you assess the gravity of the problem from a legal, ethical and moral viewpoint?

Problem SOPE Formulation from ethics theory perspective

How do you understand your SOPE analysis using major ethical theories and why? For instance, how do you empower this analysis using Rawlsian distributive justice principles and why?

EthicalAnalytic

Have you invoked the right ethical theories to understand the problem and to what effect?

Problem SOPE Formulation from moral theory perspective

How do you understand your SOPE analysis using major moral principles and to what effect? For instance, how do you empower this analysis using Kantian moral universal principles and why?

MoralAnalytic

Have you invoked the right moral principles to understand the problem and to what effect?

Problem solutions alternatives?

How many ethical and moral solutions can you identify? How do you rate them in terms of effectiveness and brand value?

Analytic Are your legal, ethical and moral problem solution-alternatives MECE?

Learning What have you learnt from AOL2? Reflective How can you reinforce good learning?

Table 4: Assurance of Learning Model Three (AOL 3):A Problem-Resolution-Outcomes Analytic Model

Domain Search/Identify


Type of Analysis

EthicalAnalysis

Key outcome-consequences to subjects, objects, properties and events (SOPE)

What were the beneficial/harmful consequences and to whom, when, where, how serious, how often, and with whom?

Descriptive,Investigational

Is your search for and analysis of beneficial/harmful outcomes objective, unbiased, exhaustive and accurate?

Key subjects,Key objects,Key properties andKey events (SOPE analysis),

Who were the key stakeholders (subjects), especially of harmful outcomes, in relation to what key objects, with what key properties and key events?

Descriptive,Investigational

Is your investigation and assessment of the harmful consequences in relation to SOPE honest, objective and unbiased? That is, is the harm accurately assessed in relation to the right SOPE? How do you ensure this?

Timeline of key events that led to beneficial or harmful consequences

What, when and how often of key consequences to SOPE.

Descriptive Is your timeline accurate and factual?

Explanations of harmful consequences with respect to SOPE?

Why harm? Why did it happen? Why not prevented?Major Antecedents of harmful consequences in relation to SOPE?Their major determinants?Their major concomitants?Their critical contingencies?

Analytic,Investigational

Is your explanation of harmful consequences in relation to SOPE compelling, valid, useful, objective and unbiased?Are you looking for the right antecedents, determinants and concomitants of these harmful consequences?

Classify, categorize and characterize harmful consequences in relation to SOPE

Any analogies?Key classification?Key categorization?Key characterization?

Analytic Are your analogy, classification, categorization and characterization of the harmful consequences relative to key SOPE valid, useful, compelling and meaningful for explanation?

Intended and unintended consequences in relation to SOPE

What were the intended and unintended harmful consequences in relation to SOPE, and why, and how severe?

Analytic,Investigational

Is your search for and assessment of the intended and unintended harmful consequences in relation to SOPE valid, objective, accurate and unbiased?

Teleological analysis of the consequences

Teleologically (i.e., relative to benefits over costs to the largest number) are harmful consequences justifiable, and why?

Teleological analysis of the consequences

Is your teleological analysis of assessing benefits over costs to the largest number valid and objective?

Deontological analysis of the consequences

Deontologically (i.e., relative to fulfilled rights over violated duties of the largest number) are harmful consequences justifiable, and why?

Deontological analysis of the consequences

Is your deontological analysis of assessing fulfilled rights over violated duties to the largest number valid and objective?

Distributive justice based analysis of the consequences

Distributive justice-wise (i.e., relative to the equitable distribution of benefits versus costs, fulfilled rights versus duties violated in relation to the largest number) are harmful consequences justifiable, and why?

Distributive justice based analysis of the consequences

Is your distributive justice based analysis of the even or equitable distribution of benefits over costs, fulfilled rights over violated duties, and in relation to the largest number, valid and objective?

Corrective justice based analysis of the consequences

Corrective justice-wise (i.e., setting up just procedures for a more equitable distribution of benefits over costs, rights over duties, and to the largest number) are harmful consequences justifiable, and why?

Corrective justice based analysis of the consequences

Is your corrective justice based analysis of setting up just processes for a more equitable distribution of benefits over costs, rights over duties, and to the largest number, valid and objective?

Virtue-ethics based analysis of the consequences

From an executive virtue-based (e.g., fairness, compassion, prudence) ethics perspective, are harmful consequences to any stakeholders, especially the powerless and the marginalized, justifiable and why?

Ethics of virtue analysis of the consequences

Is your executive virtue-based (e.g., fairness, compassion, prudence) ethical analysis and justification of harmful consequences to the stakeholders, especially to the powerless and the marginalized, valid and objective?

Trust-ethics based analysis of the consequences

From an executive trust based (e.g., mutual transparency, confidence, vulnerability) ethics perspective, are harmful consequences to any stakeholders, especially the powerless and the marginalized, justifiable and why?

Ethics of executive trust based analysis of the consequences

Is your executive trust based (e.g., mutual transparency, confidence, vulnerability) ethical justification of harmful consequences to the stakeholders, especially the powerless and the marginalized, valid and objective?

Hindsight versus foresight analysis of the problem-resolution

Hence, by hindsight what have you learnt from this problem-resolution process that, by foresight, will empower you to reduce harmful consequences, especially to the powerless and marginalized?

Hindsight-foresight analysis of the consequences

Is your hindsight versus foresight analysis of the problem-resolution valid, defensible, replicable, and generalizable?

Assurance of Learning What have you learnt from applying AOL3 to the problem-resolution?

Reflective How can you reinforce AOL3 based learning by applying it to other problems?

AOL 4

Exhibit 5.1: A Preliminary Check of Cases against Major Definitions of Virtues

Dimensions of Executive Virtue

Panama Nature Fresh Pvt. Ltd

(PNFPL)

Chicken

Farm Production (CFP)

Dividend Payments via Debt (DPD)

Socrates: Virtue is both knowing the good and willing the good of our actions.

PNFPL knew the good of village farming and was willing to do it.

Those indulging in CFP know the evil of chicken farm production and will it since CFP continues to be cruel even to this day.

DPD may not be evil by itself, but not good in the long run. Continuing to do it is not virtuous.

Plato: Four cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance.

PNFPL seems to demonstrate all four cardinal virtues.

CFP seems to disregard all four cardinal virtues.

DPD seems to demonstrate fortitude and temperance but little of prudence and justice.

Democritus (460-370 BC) held that to call a person “good” one had not only to do the good but also want to do it because it was good. Aristotle maintained that a virtuous person is not one who does virtuous acts once in a while, but one who does them regularly over long periods of time and does them as “second nature.” (p.19)

PNFPL can be called “good” and virtuous not only because they do good among village farmers, but because doing this activity is itself good. They should do it as their second nature.

CFP as action-strategy can be called if CFP for food chain is itself a good activity. CFP can be made good when it is highly civilized and humanized.

DPD as a strategy can be called good if it a “good” activity by itself, and not only when profits are low.

Aristotle: Virtue is an acquired character trait that manifests itself in habitual action of doing good.

PNFPL seems to verify this definition

CFP as action-strategy does not verify it

DPD as a strategy cannot be a habitual action that does good.

Aquinas: Moral and intellectual virtues are produced in us by humanly reasoned acts, and they perfect us through the doing of “good” deeds.

PNFPL is an intellectual virtue; as a moral virtue it may be questionable.

CFP as action-strategy is hardly an intellectual or moral virtue.

DPD as action-strategy is arguably an intellectual virtue in the short run, but fails as intellectual and moral virtue in the long run.

Kant: Virtue is a categorical imperative; often it may be a hypothetical imperative.

PNFPL is definitely a hypothetical imperative, but not apparent as a categorical imperative

CFP is mostly a reprehensible hypothetical imperative as feeding fast food chains, but never a categorical imperative.

DPD may be a hypothetical imperative for satisfying investors, but never a categorical imperative.

Foot: Virtues are specific dispositions determined by the need to correct certain deficiencies

PNFPL is a virtue in this sense.

CFP is a virtue to the extent it feeds the food chain.

DPD is a virtue in this sense.

MacIntyre: virtues are skills internal to activities or practices

PNFPL is a virtue in CFP is a virtue to the extent it feeds the food

DPD is a virtue in this sense.

that are necessary for the performance of certain roles or offices in society.

this sense. chain.

Exhibit 5.2: A Second Check of Case Companies against Major Developments of Executive Virtue



(PNFPL)

Chicken



According to Aristotle, moral virtues are habits that enable a human person to live according to reason (see p. 9).

PNFPL exhibits moral virtues as habits that enable us to live according to reason.

CFP hardly verifies moral virtues in the Aristotelian sense.

DPD may be a temporary moral virtue and habit, but it does not empower the executives to live long according to reason.

Aristotle argued that a proper control of our reason and passions should not just repress them completely nor indulge in them freely. Rather a good virtue is to seek the mean between two extremes, both of which are vices. Prudence is the virtue that enables us to know the mean in a given situation (see p. 10).

PNFPL’s over-expansion plans may not realize virtue as a golden mean between two farm production extremes.

CFP seems necessary in a non-vegetarian food chain context; but cruelty to chicken from farms to slaughter could be reduced following the golden mean.

DPD could be tempered as a strategy using the golden mean rule of virtue.

Aristotle also said that a virtue is a character state concerned with choice ruled by the golden mean determined by prudence or the practical reason. It is not possible to be fully good without having practical wisdom, nor practically wise without having excellence of character (p. 11).

PNFPL seems to be a right choice as long as the choice is ruled by the golden mean determined by the market place. But is the choice sourced by practical reason and character excellence?

CFP as a choice and action-strategy can be a virtue if ruled by the golden mean of reducing cruelty to animals. But is the choice as mean sourced by practical reason and character excellence?

DPD as a choice and strategy can be a virtue if and when determined by the golden mean. But is the choice as mean sourced by practical reason or character excellence?

An agent is praised not merely for the possession of virtue, but for its exercise and exemplification in concrete circumstances. The virtuous person is one who knows how to act and feel in ways appropriate to the circumstances (p.11).

PNFPL seems to be a right choice and an exercise of virtue led by concrete village circumstances of India.

CFP can be a right choice and an exercise of virtue when led by concrete circumstances of providing affordable quality food via fast food chains to the marginalized.

DPD can be a right choice and an exercise of virtue when led by concrete circumstances of keeping investors happy in a stagnant market.

All perceptions, reactions and assessments are contextual. The virtuous act that hits the mean is directed toward the right persons, for the right reasons, on the right occasions, and in the right manner (p. 12).

PNFPL is a contextual perception, reaction and assessment that seems to hit the right persons at the right time and for the right reasons.

CFP is a contextual perception, reaction and assessment that might have hit the right persons at the right time and for the right reasons.

DPD can be a contextual perception, reaction and assessment that may not have hit the right persons at the right time and for the right reasons.

The end of life that all human beings should aim is happiness (eudemonia). The virtues are not merely means to happiness, but constitute it; that is, happiness does not merely consist of what we get in life but also includes who we are (p. 13).

PNFPL should aim to bring happiness (eudemonia) to all stakeholders.

CFP can best aim at consumer satisfaction; happiness as eudemonia is farfetched via CFP, unless in the midst of squalor.

DPD is a satisfaction strategy at best. Happiness as eudemonia via DPD is a fuzzy dream.

Real virtue presupposes that what we do is not only good for one self at a given time but is really good for one’s self as a human being. It is for the sake of achieving the latter good that we practice the virtues and we do so making right choices about means to achieve that end (p. 14).

PNFPL’s farming activities can be a virtue if they do good not only for the company but for all its stakeholders as human beings and in a permanent way.

CFP is a virtue if it benefits not only the company but all its stakeholders as human beings and in a permanent way.

DPD may be a temporary virtue to the extent it benefits not only the company but all its stakeholders as human beings and in a permanent way.

Exhibit 5.3: A Third Check of Cases against Major Processes of an Ethic of Executive Virtue



(PNFPL)

Chicken



Developing a virtue-based ethics for business, Solomon (1992a: 104) argues that mere wealth creation should not be the purpose of any business. Instead, we must conceive of business as an essential part of the good life, living well, getting along with others, having a sense of self-respect, and being part of something one can be proud of” (p. 17).

PNFPL should not exclusively focus on wealth creation, but make it an essential part of the good life of village farmers that enables them to live well, share with others, and be proud of themselves as an exemplary village.

CFP if focused only on profits can be degrading to animal and human life. Instead, CFP, humanely conceived and designed, can transform itself into creating a “good life” for all, human and non-human beings.

DPD is a profit-based concept. It should widen its domain to the company and its stakeholders, its local and broader communities in creating a “good life” for them beyond wealth.

Individuals are embedded in communities and that business is essentially a community activity in which we work together for a common good, and excellence for a corporation consists of making the good life possible for everyone in society (Solomon 1992a: 209) (p.17).

PNFPL should consider its business essentially as a village community activity in which all work together for a common good. PNFPL’s virtue as excellence should consist of making “good life” possible for all its stakeholders.

CFP can be transformed if its business is essentially a community activity where it functions in which all work together as a farm community making “good life” possible and available for all its stakeholders, especially, the poor.

DPD may be temporarily justified if its purpose and business is essentially a community activity in which all work together as a stakeholder community making “good life” possible and available for all.

According to MacIntyre, “internal practices” with goals and results can change, expand, diminish, but not at the expense or gain of another. These “internal goods” are not competitive, not objects but “outcomes” of competition to excel; they are unique to the internal practices; the more one has them, the better off is the corporation and the community thereof (p.17).

PNFPL seems to have developed its own “internal practices” and “internal goods” that are not competitive, but “outcomes” to excel. These outcomes are unique to its internal practices. The more one has these internal practices, the better is PNFPL.

CFP does have its own “internal practices” that are competitive and questionable. They are more based on “external goods” that MacIntyre speaks of. Virtue is incompatible with “external goods” and the cutthroat competition they imply.

DPD as an “internal practice” can be just temporary as they are deceptive in the long run. They are based on “external goods” such as properties, possessions, profits, sales and market shares; they are objects of competition; they are competitive. In relation to external goods, winners imply losers, the pie is fixed, and benefits imply costs.

Business should be a human endeavor in which executives ought to find fulfillment, and therefore, emphasize the need for virtue in business. This is a valuable reminder that business is part of human and moral life (p.18).

PNFPL is best when it becomes a human endeavor that is part of village human life and also part of their moral life.

CFP needs to be much refined and civilized before it can be a human endeavor that is part of human and moral life of communities that depend upon fast food chains.

DPD as a temporary strategy can be a human endeavor; but it cannot be a lasting feature of human and moral life of the investor communities.

“To act rightly is to act rightly in affect and conduct. It is to be emotionally engaged and not merely to have the affect as accompaniment or instrument” (Sherman 1989: 2). Emotions themselves are modes of moral response that determine what is morally relevant and, in some cases, what is required (p. 18).

PNFPL must be emotionally engaged in village farming activities; emotions should modes of their moral response that help determine what is relevant and required in the villages they work.

CFP is best humanized when all stakeholders (producers, distributors and consumers included) are emotionally engaged in the lives of animals they feed on; these modes of emotional responses should prompt what is relevant and required.

DPD is currently profits measure; when mixed with debt it may become deceptive. Only emotional engagement could reveal what is morally relevant and required in DPD strategies.

According to Hauerwas (1981), moral PNFPL can be a moral CFP is an essential part of the DPD as a temporary choice and

business management decision is not so much of what one is obliged to do, but the kind of person one would be by doing it . To act rightly is to act rightly in affect and conduct. Discerning the morally salient features of a situation is part of expressing virtue and part of the morally appropriate response (p. 18).

business management not in terms what it feels morally obliged to do, but in being the kind of moral person it becomes by doing what it does. Discerning morally salient features of village farming should be a part of PNFPL’s moral virtue.

non-vegetarian food chain. The challenge is to make it a human and moral business endeavor in relation to both humans and non-humans. Discerning the morally salient features of CFP should be a part of expressing its moral virtue.

strategy is moral if the business is itself a moral and human endeavor. Discerning the morally salient features of DPD is part of expressing virtue and part of the morally appropriate response.

There may be a strategic virtue in doing things rightly, but there is a moral virtue in doing right things rightly (Aristotle 1985) (p. 19).

PNFPL should aim at moral virtue that not only does right things, but also does them rightly.

CFP should aim at moral virtue that not only does right things, but also does them rightly.

DPD should aim at moral virtue that not only does right things, but also does them rightly.

Exhibit 5.4: A Fourth Check of Case Companies against Major Antecedents of Executive Virtue



(PNFPL)

Chicken Farm Production (CFP)


Contemporary moral philosophers argue that executed acts are not necessary for the moral description of persons. That is, goodness (or badness) is not consequent to questions of rightness or wrongness but antecedent to it, distinct from it, determinative of it. Persons are good who strive to realize the right, and actions are right when they satisfactorily fulfill the demands of protecting and promoting values (pp. 20-21).

PNFPL’s executed good acts are not enough to describe them as moral. Goodness is antecedent and determinative of what PNFPL does. PNFPL is morally good when it consistently strives to be good before launching into action.

Whether companies that engage in CFP thinking it CFP is good does not make them moral. They are moral when they consistently strive to be good before launching into any CFP action.

DPD does not make companies that do it automatically moral. Goodness is antecedent and determinative of what DPD does.

Companies that engage in DPD are moral when they consistently strive to be good before launching into any DPD choice or venture.

Thus, a person who performs a wrong action can be called good for performing the action, as long he strives to do the right. Thus, we no longer call people good if they do good actions, rather we call them good when they strive to realize rightness (p. 21).

PNFPL’s over-expansion plans do not determine whether they are moral or bad; the question is whether PNFPL always seeks to do the right thing rightly antecedent to whatever it does.

CFP seems a necessary evil in a non-vegetarian food chain context; antecedent to CFP if companies are consistently seeking to strive for rightness, then the guilt that doing CFP entails may be exonerated.

DPD may be a necessary evil in a highly competitive world. Doing DPD in itself does not make one good or bad; Striving consistently to be right and good before any DPD decisions, defines goodness and being moral.

Conversely, people are bad not when they perform “bad” actions but when they fail to strive to perform the right. Badness, then, is not simply acting out of selfishness or malice; prior to act, badness pertains to the failure to strive for rightness (Keenan 1992). [p.21]

What PNFPL does may be good or bad or indifferent. What matters for moral predication is that PNFPL consistently seeks to do good and avoid bad.

What CFP does may be good or bad or indifferent. What matters for CFP people for being moral is that they consistently seek to do good and avoid evil.

DPD may be good, bad or indifferent. What matters for moral attribution is that those engage in DPD consistently strive to do good and avoid evil for all its stakeholders.

Contemporary understanding of moral goodness is fundamentally related to the concept of human freedom. Due to nature, nurture, economics, luck, and other external causes, some people are more capable of realizing right activity and goodness. Some have a ready disposition to be temperate, or just or prudent (p.21).

PNFPL makes a right choice and an exercise of right virtue when acting freely from innate strengths and controlled weaknesses.

CFP can be a right choice and an exercise of virtue when led by true freedom of one’s striving for rightness and avoiding evil.

DPD can be a right choice and an exercise of virtue when led and determined by true freedom of one’s striving for rightness and avoiding evil.

In general, people perform right activity based on their strengths, and wrong activity from their weaknesses. Since each person has a different set of strengths and weaknesses, each person is differently inclined to right or wrong (p. 21).

Since PNFPL has a different set of strengths and weaknesses, it is differently inclined to right or wrong. Any judgment call should take this into account.

Those who engage in CFP come from a different set of strengths or weaknesses, and hence, differently inclined to right or wrong. Any judgment call should take this into account.

Those who engage in DPD come from a different set of strengths or weaknesses, and hence, differently inclined to right or wrong. Any judgment call on them should take this into account.

One could improve upon one’s strengths PNFPL should Those who engage in PFP Those who engage in DPD should

and reduce one’s weaknesses – this is the exercise of virtue by which one orders oneself. The more a person enjoys personal freedom, the more is that person rightly ordered, and vice versa (p.21).

continuously and freely seek to augment its moral strengths and eliminate its moral weaknesses. The more it does this, the more morally ordered is its strategic deliberation, choice and action.

should continuously and freely seek to augment their moral strengths and diminish their moral weaknesses. The more they do this, the more morally ordered are their subsequent strategic deliberations, choices and actions.

continuously and freely seek to augment their moral strengths and combat their moral weaknesses. The more they do this, the more morally ordered are their subsequent strategic deliberations, choices and actions in relation to DPD.

Exhibit 5.5: A Fifth Check of Company Cases against Major Requirements of Moral Goodness via Executive Virtue



(PNFPL)

Chicken Farm Production (CFP)


Moral goodness always requires that we strive to realize the right. Failure to strive to realize the right is moral fail-ure.

PNFPL should seek moral goodness by always striving to realize the right, and avoid moral failure of not striving to realize the right.

Any CFP activity should seek moral goodness by always striving to realize the right, and avoid moral failure of not striving to realize the right.

Any DPD strategy should seek moral goodness by always striving to realize the right, and avoid moral failure of not striving to realize the right.

Moral goodness as a striving is not sim-ply wishing; it is actual self-motivation willing to consider all the factors neces-sary to moral living, to deliberate about them, and to execute the decision. That is, moral goodness is found in the exer-cise of the will to do and be good – this is virtue ethics.

PNFPL should seek moral goodness by the exercise of corporate will - by willing to consider all the factors necessary to moral living, to deliberate about them, and to execute the consequent decision.

Any CFP action should seek moral goodness by the exercise of corporate will - by willing to consider all the factors necessary to moral living despite CFP, to deliberate about them, and to execute the consequent decision.

DPD should seek moral goodness by the exercise of corporate will - by willing to consider all the factors necessary to moral living despite DPD, to deliberate about them, and to execute the consequent decision.

The contrary of moral goodness is not the willingness to be bad, but the failure to be good. The will becomes or is morally bad in its failure to consider all the values and factors that pertain to moral life.

Moral badness for PNFPL is not its willingness to be bad, but its failure to be good – when it fails to con-sider all the values and fac-tors that pertain to moral life in village farming.

Moral badness of CFP is not its willingness to be bad, but its failure to be good – when it fails to consider all the values and factors that pertain to moral life in a CFP context.

Moral badness for DPD is not its willingness to be bad, but its failure to be good – when it fails to consider all the values and factors that pertain to moral life involved in DPD.

We grow in virtue only if we exercise right acts in relation to that virtue. If we do not exercise right or virtuous acts, we do not become rightly ordered or virtu-ous. Exercise needs both encouragement to execute the act and the wisdom to know which act to execute, in which case exercise follows reason.

PNFPL can grow in virtue only if it exercises right acts in relation to that virtue, failing which it cannot become rightly ordered or virtuous. Exercising right acts needs wisdom and reason or prudence.

Those who must use CFP can still grow in virtue of compassion only if they exercise right acts in relation to that virtue, failing which they can easily become disordered. Exercising right acts needs wisdom and good reasoning.

Those who must use DPD can still grow in virtue of honesty to stakeholders only if they exercise right acts in relation to that virtue, failing which they can easily become disordered. Exercising right acts needs wisdom and good reasoning.

Not all good people are virtuous or rightly ordered; some good people may still be disordered in some areas of their life. Hence, beyond the virtues of tem-perance, courage, justice and prudence, moral philosophers postulate a fifth virtue that conditions all these four car-dinal virtues to make the person good: charity or benevolence.

PNFPL’s village farming strategies should be not only transformed by the four cardinal virtues of prudence, fortitude, temperance and justice, but also by benevolence that conditions and sharpens the four cardinal virtues.

CFP activities should be not only humanized and civilized by the four cardinal virtues of prudence, fortitude, temperance and justice, but also by compassion or benevolence that conditions and sharpens the four cardinal virtues.

DPD strategies should be not only informed by the four cardinal virtues of prudence, fortitude, temperance and justice, but also by charity or compassion toward all stakeholders.

Charity or benevolence is a virtue of striving, whereas temperance, courage, justice, and prudence are virtues of at-taining. Benevolence (or charity) is the moral description for a person who liter-ally strives to realize rightness.

PNFPL can strive for moral goodness while exercising benevolence, and can attain moral goodness while seeking the four cardinal virtues of temperance, courage, prudence and justice.

All engaged in CFP can still strive for moral goodness when exercising compassion and can attain moral goodness while seeking the four cardinal virtues of temperance, courage, prudence and justice.

Companies that must engage in DPD can still strive for moral goodness when exercising benevolence on all affected by DPD and can attain moral goodness while seeking the four cardinal virtues of temperance, courage, prudence and justice.

Any willful exercise of virtue is twofold: the primary exercise out of which we are moved, and the secondary exercise by which we execute the judgment to act. The primary exercise defines goodness; the secondary exercise defines rightness.

PNFPL needs to seek goodness by the primary exercise of being properly motivated and seek rightness by the secondary exercise of deciding to act rightly.

Any CFP activity needs to seek goodness by the primary exercise of being properly motivated and seek rightness by the secondary exercise of deciding to act rightly.

Any PDP activity needs to seek goodness by the primary exercise of being properly motivated and seek rightness by the secondary exercise of deciding to act rightly at the right time.

Table 5.1: Characterizing the Virtuous Zone of both “Internal Practices” and “External Goods” in a Business Environment (V = Virtue Potential)

Value-Chain Value-Chain Components:

“Internal Practices”

Value-Virtue Enhancing Parameters along:

Internal Practices External Goods

Fea

sib

ilit

y -V

iab

ilit

y

Cos

t-E

ffec

-ti

ven

ess

Hon

esty

-In

tegr

ity

Fai

r &

Just

P

roce

du

res

Cu

stom

er

Saf

ety-

Sec

uri

ty

Cu

stom

er

Pri

vacy

Eco

logi

cal

Sal

es-

Sti

mu

lati

n

Pro

fita

ble

Eth

ical

/M

oral

Upstream Value Chain:

Front-end Innovations(18 areas)

Innovation Idea generation V V V V V V V V V VInnovation Concept generation V V V V V V V V V VCreativity-Innovation V V V V V V V V V VPatentable ideas and concepts V V V V V V V V V VPrototype generation V V V V V V V V V VDesign-testing V V V V V V V V V VFabrication-casting V V V V V V V V V VMaterials selection V V V V V V V V V VComponents selection V V V V V V V V V VAssembly line operations V V V V V V V V V VSupply chain management V V V V V V V V V VPurchasing V V V V V V V V V VTransportation logistics V V V V V V V V V VWarehousing V V V V V V V V V VProcess Technology V V V V V V V V V VProduct Technology V V V V V V V V V VQuality Control V V V V V V V V V VInventory optimization V V V V V V V V V V

Midstream Value Chain:

Mid-end Innovations(10 areas)

Product sizing V V V V V V V V V VProduct packaging V V V V V V V V V VProduct labeling V V V V V V V V V VInstruction Manuals V V V V V V V V V VOrder Processing V V V V V V V V V VDelivery Logistics V V V V V V V V V VInstallation/use/maintenance V V V V V V V V V VInventory replenishment V V V V V V V V V VStore shelving V V V V V V V V V VShelf replenishment V V V V V V V V V V

Downstream Value Chain:

Back-end Innovations(21 areas)

Product preannouncements V V V V V V V V V VPress Release V V V V V V V V V VUnit Costing V V V V V V V V V VUnit Pricing V V V V V V V V V VPrice Bundling V V V V V V V V V VProduct Bundling V V V V V V V V V VRebate and discounting V V V V V V V V V VFree sampling and testing V V V V V V V V V VPromotions & advertising V V V V V V V V V VCredit/financing V V V V V V V V V VStore choice and retailing V V V V V V V V V VPoint of purchase display V V V V V V V V V VSalesperson service V V V V V V V V V VServicing Warranties V V V V V V V V V VCustomer complaints V V V V V V V V V VCustomer redress V V V V V V V V V VCustomer loyalty generation V V V V V V V V V VBuilding brand Community V V V V V V V V V VCustomer co-designing V V V V V V V V V VCustomer co-production V V V V V V V V V V

Customer co-partnering V V V V V V V V V V

Table 5.2: A Partial Characterization of Goodwill and Good and the Opposites

Executive Motives

Executive Actions

Good

[Right actions that promote good values]

Bad

[Wrong actions that promote disvalues]

Good

Assumption 1: Right actions with right motives are a necessary condition for calling a person good (Hare 1952)

Good people doing good.

Assumption 2: Wrong actions are not a necessary condition for calling a person bad (Aquinas 1964).

Good people doing bad.

Examples:

A “good” person

A virtuous person

A moral person

An ethical person

A just person

A righteous person

An upright person

Examples:

A good-willed failure

An ignorant mistake

A misinformed disaster

A conscientious boycott

An addict’s violence

Killing in a just war

Involuntary murder

Bad

Assumption 3: Right actions are not a necessary condition for calling a person good (Kant 1964).

Bad people doing good.

Assumption 4: Right actions are a necessary condition for calling a person good (Moore 1912)

Bad people doing bad.

Examples:

A bad-willed success

A malevolent courage

An ill-willed victory

Parading charity

Almsgiving for power

Oppressive kindness

Philanthropy for tax write-offs

Examples:

A “wicked” person being wicked

A vicious person’s vice

A malicious person’s malice

A selfish person acting selfish

Deliberate drunken violence

Killing in an unjust war

Voluntary murder

Table 5.3: A Synthesis: Goodwill, Goodness, Right & Good to Understand Virtue versus Vice

Agent’s Motives

(Morality Ethics)

Virtue as Habitual Pre-dispositions

(Virtue Ethics)

Nature of Action

(Deontology)

Nature of Consequenc

es

(Teleology)

Corporate Executive Examples of

Virtue versus Vice

Good

Goodness as striving and

wanting to be right

Right

Good

Good-willed corporate executives

Good-striving corporate executives

Right-acting corporate executives

Good corporate management results

Bad




Bad corporate results (e.g., bad economy)

Wrong

Good



Wrong-acting corporate executives

Good corporate results (e.g., sheer luck)

Bad




Bad corporate results (e.g., poor planning; bad model)

Badness as not striving and not wanting to be right

Right

Good


Poor-striving corporate executives


Good corporate results (e.g., a booming industry)

Bad


Poor-striving corporate executives


Bad corporate results (e.g., a stagnant industry)


Wrong

Good Poor-striving corporate executives


Good corporate results (e.g., a booming economy & luck)

Bad


Poor-striving but good motive corporate executives


Bad corporate results (e.g., bad performance)

Bad

Goodness as striving and

wanting to be right

Right

Good

Bad-willed but good-striving corporate executives

Right-acting evil corporate executives

Good corporate results (e.g., a malevolent success)

Bad



Bad corporate results (e.g., a malevolent failure)

Wrong

Good



Good corporate results (e.g., a fraudulent success)

Bad



Bad corporate results (e.g., a fraudulent failure)

Badness as not striving

and not wanting to

be right

Right

Good

Bad-willed and bad-striving corporate executive

But acting right with good corporate results

(e.g., a shrewd corporate success)

Bad


But acting right with bad corporate results

(e.g., a shrewd corporate failure)

Wrong

Good


Acting wrong with good corporate results

(e.g., an immoral and wicked corporate success)

Bad


Acting wrong with bad corporate results

(e.g., an immoral and wicked corporate failure)

Table 5.4: Normative versus Virtue-based Ethics for Corporate Executives

Dimensions

Normative Ethics Virtue-based Ethics

Definition The ethical Theory that bases the morality of executive actions primarily in relation to compliance to existing social and/or moral norms.

The ethical Theory that bases the morality of executive actions primarily in relation to the moral virtuous quality and predispositions of the executive agent.

Moral Orientation

Search and conformity to the proper norm Virtue-based ordered will and good-oriented choices

Predominant Philosophy

Rule Utilitarianism: The rule of norm does not express the intrinsic morality of the action but only the reasonableness or rightness of a given executive behavior that conforms to a given moral or social norm.

Rule Ontologism: The rule of virtue-based ethics does express the intrinsic morality of the action not in its conformity to a given moral or social norm but by the goodness of the executive agent whose moral virtues prompted the given action.

Domain of Moral Value

The moral rightness or wrongness of the executive action that conforms to norms

The moral goodness or badness of the executive agent and action

Domain of Inquiry

Under what conditions does an executive action become morally right or wrong?

Under what conditions does an executive action become morally good or bad?

Objective Source (conditions) of Moral Value

Legitimacy of the social or moral norm.

Fundamental rightness of the given norm.

Close conformity of the executive action to the moral norm.

Rightness of the intended and unintended consequences of the chosen action.

Fundamental moral goodness of the chosen action.

Fundamental moral goodness of the choosing person.

Fundamental goodness of the executive moral virtues backing the action.

Goodness of the intended and unintended consequences of the chosen action.

Subjective Source (conditions) of Moral Value

Right internalization of the norm.

Right interpretation of the chosen norm.

Rightness of the execution of the chosen norm.

Goodness of executive intentions that desire the action.

Quality of executive freewill that chooses the action.

Goodness of the intellectual moral virtues that prompt the execution of the action: wisdom, prudence.

Goodness of the executive volitive moral virtues that prompt the execution of the action: Moral courage, pertinacity, consistency, passionate commitment.

Objective Source of

Illegitimacy of the social or moral norm. Fundamental moral evil of the chosen action.

Moral Disvalue

Fundamental wrongness of the given norm.

Close conformity of the executive action to the wrong moral norm.

Wrongness of the intended and unintended consequences of the chosen action.

Fundamental moral badness of the choosing person.

Fundamental badness of the executive moral vices backing the action.

Badness of the intended and unintended consequences of the chosen action.

Subjective Source of Moral Disvalue

Wrong internalization of the wrong norm.

Wrong interpretation of the chosen wrong norm.

Wrongness of the execution of the chosen norm.

Badness of executive intentions that desire the action.

Quality of executive free will that choses the evil action.

Wickedness of the intellectual moral vices that prompt the execution of the action: lack of wisdom, imprudence.

Wickedness of the executive volitive moral vices that prompt the executive action: Moral cowardice, lack of perseverance in seeking goodness and truth, in consistency, passionate commitment for evil.

Expected moral outcomes

Rightness of the moral norm.

Conformity to the moral norm.

Rectitude of the conformity.

Goodness of the choosing executive.

Goodness of the executive choice.

The agent and the organization becoming good.

Documents

AOL 1-4 and Cases