Jotting #14 Applying Virtue Ethics

Question/Prompt: Evaluate case #20, page 235 of HARRIS, as a virtue ethicist or care ethicist would.

My Answer/Response:
My default view of overpaid CEO’s has never been favorable. The fact that one man or women could be paid 160 more times than the average American employee seems just plain wrong. But it is not enough to rely on the way things seem. Furthermore just because I may feel it is not right that so much money is given to this one person does not actually make it wrong. There is always an opposing view on issues even if it seems that the issue is obvious. The fact of the matter is the CEO is benefiting greatly from the high salary and could probably give good reasons justifying the amount they are paid.

Some of the arguments supporting high CEO wages are outlined in the case itself. “If highly qualified people occupy these positions everyone will benefit; even the lowest-paid worker will be better off than he or she would be otherwise, because there will be ore and better-paying jobs.”

In applying virtue ethics we must first determine what the alternative options are in the situation. One alternative is a pay cut for the CEO. In turn this money could be distributed among all of the people that work for the company. The redistributed money would bring an increased level of living for those employees. However, a paycut may bring poor results to the company as well. The lower pay of the CEO will make the job less attractive for qualified individuals. If a lesser qualified person gets the job the company may in turn suffer as a result. This suffering could manifest itself in many different ways one of which being job cuts. Job cuts are worse than a low paying job for the person.

If the CEO were in fact a virtuous person they would enjoy being virtuous. This virtue of course is not cut and dry. To the CEO it may seem virtuous to take the pay because they know that they are the only ones that can do the job that they are doing. This gets into the situation of virtue pluralism. Virtue pluralism, according to Harriss, “recognizes that different people can emphasize different virtues and that there may not be any way to establish one virtue or set of virtues as superior overall.

The best way to handle this situation is to apply the final point of the checklist Harriss provides in his book. If you do in fact feel that both options (paycut or keep the pay) are equal than you can appeal to this; “select the action that represents the most desirable virtues in the situation.”