It is ostensibly obvious that anytime currency is involved in a situation especially business in relation to earning money, unethical behavior will be revealed. Chapter one of Business Ethics begins with examples of white-collar executives who were sent to prison or companies bankrupt as a consequence of unethical behavior. From the investors, the one I consider most ethical is former CEO Martin Shkreli of Turing Pharmaceuticals,  who was convicted of securities fraud for raising the price of an HIV treatment drug from $13.50 to $750 a pill, (Schwartz, 2017, p. 33). What leads me to apply a degree of immorality to this example is the factor of human life; furthermore, not merely human life, but people whose lives have become subjects of unfortunate illness. While the executives were convicted of manipulating stocks; and I realize the lives who suffered from that consequence may have become homeless or other extremes, but the victims suffering from HIV were already in a grave position and raising the price of their medication to a ridiculous price makes the severity of their situation worse.

Un-ethical practices are seemingly constant in the world of business. Reuters writer Brad Brooks (2019) reports ICE agents assisted in the arrest of a Brazilian man Luiz Eduardo Loureiro Andrade on December 20 in the United States. Luiz Andrade is accused of bribing officials on behalf of a Brazilian oil company, “Vitol Group” of an excess of $2.85 million dollars. The pursuit of fast money and the luxurious fantasies it provides will always be a strong temptation for anyone given the opportunity. This does not mean whoever acts in this manner is an evil person, the fact is that there is a relatively thin line between moral and immoral decisions. When riches are involved, moral character is not at the highest consideration, but instead, it is whether the unethical behavior is worth the risk compared to the consequence.

I can agree with Aristotle’s view of moral virtue increasing with practice. What I disagree with is the concept of the moral ideal, that the moral ideal is “someone who naturally does the right thing,” (Schwartz, M. S. (2017). Any individual with full mental capability has the capacity within their moral character to naturally do the right thing; however, the moral opposite can be applied as well, that the same individuals have the capacity within their moral character to do the wrong thing. It is just as natural to a human to do the right thing and the wrong thing. It is, therefore, more ideal to say that anyone who has the capability of doing the right thing is just as likely to do the wrong thing at any given moment. We can apply Schwartz’s first and second dimensions of moral character to the subjects mentioned in the book and the article and gain great reflections, but there is a faculty I believe needs to be considered and that is, “convenience”. Often, it is likely that an individual will compromise their moral character whenever it is convenient for them to do so. The moral character can be viewed and used as an innate moral instrumental tool to gain or lose something one wants, needs, or discard of a thing or even avoid social relations according to their own convenience. In this theory, one’s convenience would take precedence over moral principle.

Works Cited

Schwartz, M. S. (2017). Business ethics: an ethical decision-making approach. Retrieved from

Brooks, Brad. (2019). Top suspect in Vitol, Glencore Brazil bribery case arrested in the U.S. Reuters Business News.

Schwartz, M. S. (2017). Business ethics: an ethical decision-making approach. Retrieved from

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s