Virtue ethics is “a broad term for theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting in order to bring about good consequences” (Athanassoulis, 2010). Virtue ethics are certain principles, such as merit or loyalty in which we should make every effort to consent to the full development in our organizations; these ideals are a reflection of what we ultimately have the potential to become. According to Velasquez, et.al, (1998), “Virtues are attitudes, dispositions, or character traits that enable us to be and to act in ways that develop this potential. They enable us to pursue the ideals we have adopted. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues”. Virtue ethics also does not provide guidance on how we should act, as there are no clear principles for guiding action other than “act as a virtuous person would act given the situation.” (2010). In this paper, I will address and define three of these virtues, apply each virtue respectively to the Mattel: GMP case, and describe which normative ethic was the most useful in evaluating the case.
Courage, Fairness and Honesty
According to Dictionary.com, courage is the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear. Courage is being brave in the face of adversity. Dictionary.com describes fairness as being of pleasing appearance, especially because of pure or fresh quality. Fairness is also having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; being impartial and just to all parties and consistent with rules, logic, or ethics. Being fair involves treating each individual the same. Lastly, Dictionary.com defines honesty as the quality of the fact of
