Ethical behaviuor question Todd Burke has quite recently checked on his November

Question

Ethical behaviuor question

Todd Burke has quite recently checked on his November’s financial statements and is unnerved that he probably won't accomplish his profit targets for the year, which closes in a month. Subsequently, he may lose a $10,000 bonus for outperforming his objective for the year. All of the sudden he had an idea and if he can put off the beginning of the marketing campaign effort that could begin in mid-December to mid-January and avoid having to recognize the expense of developing the campaign until the next fiscal year. He understands that deferring the marketing campaign by one month might impact his sales for the following year, however he will manage that issue one year from now as of now. The reward is extremely imperative to him because he promised his wife a trip at the beginning of the year.

Required:

1- Is Todd Burke behaving ethically in how he is approaching the problem? Why or why not?

2. What suggestions do you have for Todd Burke in arriving at a satisfactory solution to his dilemma?

Explanation / Answer

We began with a thought of comedy, applied to a treatise on human members of the family, Burke mentioned, describing the origins of A Grammar of reasons. In different words, the complete Motivorum challenge starts offevolved in ethics, a treatise on human relations.Ethics will not be an afterthought, purely anything else introduced to A Grammar, A Rhetoric, and A Symbolic. Instead, ethics is Burke's first and most recurrent impulse. What we must need and no longer want, what we will have to do and preclude doing is Burke's area first to last. It starts offevolved with a theory of comedy on the grounds that that idea is normative, a topic of ought and must.Such formulations as moralized with the aid of the bad
are descriptive, claims about what is. As wee already obvious, which you can't make an ethics out of descriptive statements. In contrast, comedy offers a imaginative and prescient of the fascinating, what have got to be. It embodies an angle, how we will have to process human family members. Ethics is nothing if now not normative, and so you could fashion an ethics out of comic norms. And what does Burke say in Attitudes towards history, the place his thought of comedy is first developed? anything poetry is also, criticism had fine be comedian (ATH, 107).

Let's alter the terms and contemplate the implications of this statement as an alternative: anything morality could also be, an ethics had quality be comic.

The announcement implies, absolutely, that morality and ethics aren't the same thing. In reality morality way what the Greek phrase ethos means, customized, disposition, persona that's, for the most phase we don't assemble our morality. Its consistently already there, in a position to return into play as quickly as come upon a obstacle the place what we have to do turns into an issue. Accordingly, if any person supplied to put in writing a morality, we in finding the notion unusual. You don't write a morality. You live it. It's your custom, your disposition, your persona.

Now, if morality is ethos, what's ethics? Customarily the reply can be, a branch of philosophy that displays on morality and makes an attempt to make its assumptions and standards express, with the intention to render a coherent account of what's proper and just right (or useful). But the main issue is that, so conceived, an ethics is essentially impossible. Alasdair MacIntyre complains that
For MacIntyre, a typical ethicist, this moral confusion is something moral philosophy have got to confront and overcome. For Burke and people of us who comply with him I believe it is some thing else fully.
MacIntyre is right: Our ethical convictions are inconsistent. But they aren't so chiefly since we are careworn. They're so considering that morality is constantly a response to a crisis. For those who summary from the circumstances, of direction what you'll get are batches of inconsistent moral concepts. However this is exactly what we Burkeans wouldn't or shouldn't do. What is language for us? Symbolic motion. And what is symbolic action? A technique for encompassing a drawback. Our morality enters the snapshot both in sizing up some occasions and in the procedures we undertake for encompassing these situations.

What does this mean for an ethic of factors? It means it won't be a situational ethics, however rather an ethic of situations. It means that it won't do what philosophy has ordinarily achieved, abstract from situations in a futile effort to discover what is particularly and continuously correct and just right. Morality is a part of that rhetorical problem the Greeks called kairos, a timely and suitable response to a special hindrance that we can never come upon in all its particulars again. An ethic of causes readily won't try and do what philosophy tries to do render morality coherent.

You see, then, why i've largely abandoned the ethical way of life and why i have ceased trying to situation Burke inside it. For essentially the most part an ethics of explanations might be, as they used to say on Monte Python, something thoroughly exceptional. however how exactly specific?

First and most importantly, it's going to be comedian. Comedy presents our intention, Burke's ad bellum purificandum, toward the purification of war. We received't be able to do away with clash in human members of the family, but our ethic need to attempt to limit conflict to phrases, verbal conflict. We all know, then, what we would like. Furthermore, we know loads about how well strategy the moral confusion MacIntyre described so well. Instead of solemnly venture to get rid of it, well take the comic route of appreciating it instead. We can smile or chuckle at our possess and everyone else inconsistency given that we all know that morality are not able to be any further regular than situations are.

Second, an ethic of explanations shall be principal in the sense of getting a depth dimension. Considering the fact that we know what we want, limiting clash to phrases, well want to expose and criticize moral convictions and values that lead to conflict. Generally the convictions and values are so undoubtedly conflict-like that well require no depth dimension. When our President declares a conflict on terror and formulates a coverage inaccurately labeled preemptive war, who wishes some thing however the surface? However, some ethical convictions and notions of the great are not so surely connected with struggle-making. We valorize competition, for illustration, with out realizing that most commonly it method cut-throat exploitation of normal assets and people, resulting in destitution, alienation, resentment, and of direction ordinarily armed resistance. No, as Burke taught us in so many approaches, we can't take morality and notions of the nice at face value. Even whatever we may love, like first-rate tragedy, requires us to evaluate the ethics of noble sacrifice, some thing promoted every Memorial Day.
Third, a Burkean ethics ought to be embodied. Why? On account that we are image-utilising animals. No doubt we'd don't have any morality without language, and absolutely no ethical principles, given that language is required to state them. But if we are moralized by the bad, we remain our bodies, animals, flesh and blood, and many of our moral convictions and values are incomprehensible apart from bodily existence. Yet most ordinary philosophy has tried to process ethics abstractly and formally, as if it have been an undertaking in pure purpose on my own. This tendency will also be traced the entire solution to Plato. To see a good-developed substitute, pick up George Lakoff and Mark Johnson's Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied intellect and Its challenge to Western thought (common Books, 1999). For ethics, see in particular chapters 14 and 20. Of course, Burke's philosophy used to be already philosophy in the flesh lengthy earlier than both Lakoff or Johnson had been born. And we will have got to go some distance past what Lakoff and Johnson have performed. They're content material to account for morality as metaphorical extensions of bodily wishes. They miss all of the moral issues that come up completely from our symbol-engendered motivations. It takes language, as Burke cited, to hate as ones enemy a humans dwelling thousands of miles away, whom we've got by no means met and don't comprehend. A Burkean ethics have got to be imperative, certainly of the motivations that come up from notions like the American century I point out Lakoff and Johnson quite often to denote that easy methods to an embodied ethics is now open to a degree it hasn't been before.

Fourth, and last, an ethic of motives must be ecological in Burke's elevated feel of the time period. Sure, Burke has in intellect ecology in its ordinary that means, preserving the planet. If this doesn't occur, naturally we are able to anticipate the tip of ethics on account that the symbol-making use of animal will stop to exist. Ecology and embodiment are as tightly associated as comedy and criticism. However Burke also approach by means of ecology resistance to any unbalanced conceptions and values that happen to exist in our curve of history. He emphasized himself our over-dedication to technological manipulation, however we could adduce many different instances of investment in ways and signifies that violate social and cultural ecology. in short, a Burkean ethics will probably be a kind of steady counter-assertion, as Burke's first book used to be. It's going to be an ethics of resistance.

To come to our original question: will we create an ethic of causes inspired by means of Burke's concept? Clearly, we are able to. However will have to we? What might we achieve if we fleshed out an ethic of causes?

First, we could exhibit that rhetoric and ethics aren't basically special, so much much less basically at odds. They come together in kairos, the timely and right, and in an extra Greek concept of first-rate significance for both rhetoric and ethics, phronesis, roughly translated as practical judgment. Put an extra way, rhetoric and ethics are both arts, realistic arts, with everything that functional art implies. They don't seem to be Philosophical, capital P they're situational. They are discursive. They are guys and females reasoning together to check out to observe what's proper and good in this exact case or set of occasions. Asking questions like, what is the good? is also great prompts for dialogue in a philosophy category, however they offer little guidance or support. That's what I intended by means of pronouncing that an ethic of factors must be an ethic of circumstances. It is going to be a situational ethics handiest in the experience that all ethical judgments and acts are situated.

2d, instead of wasting time pursuing abstractions just like the proper and the good, we have to flesh out, be as concrete and exact as we can, about an ethics based on working out ourselves as symbol-utilising animals.Let's be clear about this. We aren't angels. We're not even creatures of pure intellect, try as we might to lessen ourselves to disembodied minds. Nor are we complicated rats. Or blond beasts. We are floor apes, social animals, that first stood upright and then bought language. We are fully stylish on our our bodies, and our bodies are fully elegant on the rather slim range of environmental conditions required to sustain them. What, then, must we would like? What will have to subject to us? Additionally: We now not most effective use symbols they use us. Burke's motto possibly a variant on some thing Thoreau stated: Symbols are in the saddle and so they experience mankind. What, then, will have to we want? What should matter to us? How will we come collectively in a comic society of simple Adams and Eves, flesh and blood, as an alternative than be goaded through the spirit of hierarchy and rotten with perfection? If we will't gain knowledge of to appreciate and manage our image-driven reasons, how can we be moral?

It's going to sound overly grand and perhaps even an additional symbolic delusion, but the world wishes a Burkean ethics. We need to stop believing that it matters if my God is unique from your God. And even that it concerns if you have no God at all. We ought to stop believing that piles of dead bodies signify transcendent worth. In brief and in sum, Burkean ethics is ready putting the skids on self-victimage. we have now met the enemy and they are us, Pogo famously proclaimed, whatever a comic ethics must on no account put out of your mind. Can we meet ourselves as something rather than the enemy? Thats the pleasant undertaking, the endlessly unrealized probability, the frontier well in no way run out of, the ultimate end and purpose of ethics.

*Timothy W. Crusius is an accomplice professor of English at Southern Methodist school. His books involves Kenneth Burke and the conversation after Philosophy, Discourse: A Critique and Synthesis of main Theories, A instructor's Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics, and The pursuits of Argument: A Rhetoric and Reader, which he coauthored with Carolyn Channell. This essay used to be at the start presented to the the Sixth Triennial Kenneth Burke convention, Penn State university (State tuition), July 2005.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse E
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.