12、道德體係的四大領域
The installation of a moral system is vital in every society. Yet, every moral system must deal with the major conflicting general moral issues: Consequentialism versus Non-consequentialism; Self versus Other-Interestedness; Act Utilitarianism versus Rule Utilitarianism; and Emotion versus Reason. When all four areas are combined and examined, there are conflicting views that must be resolved.
1.First of all, there is the issue of Consequentialism and Non-consequentialism. Consequentialism is best described by utilitarianism, where decisions are based on the consequences of the outcome of the decision made. On the other hand, Non-consequentialism is best described as an ethical theory that is based not on the consequences of the action, but on some higher moral standard that is placed upon them. The conflict between the two is whether to do what is best according to the outcome or follow what one feels as the higher moral standard would require them to adhere to.
2.Secondly, there is the conflict between Self versus Other-Interestedness. The concept of Self is best described as being selfish and only caring about oneself without worrying about what might happen to others. While the concept of Other-Interestedness is basically putting the needs of everyone else over your own （this is similar to utilitarianism）. The big conflict is that most people are going to choose themselves first, but if this were a perfect society the people would worry about everyone first. If people would think about it, then they figure it out that they are included in everyone.
3.Next, there is the issue of the Act Utilitarianism versus the Rule Utilitarianism. The act approach to utilitarianism is that a person should perform acts that will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number. On the other hand, the rule approach to utilitarianism is that people establish and follow rules which will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number. The major conflicting moral issue is whether or not there is freedom involved in the decision making process. Act Utilitarianism gives unlimited freedom, while Rule Utilitarianism gives virtually no freedom, but Rule Utilitarianism gives structure and stability to the society. The best way to solve this area would be to have Rule Utilitarianism and Act Utilitarianism combined so that you have rules to give some structure to society but have the ability for the people to be allowed to express their individual freedoms in the society.
4.Finally, there is the issue between Reason and Emotion. Reason is described as thinking about what the outcome of the decision would be, then making the decision. The theory of Emotion is reacting to one’s emotions without thinking about the possible outcome of the situation. In this situation one has to side with reason because if not the society would have people reacting to their emotions all the time which could chaos and would not fit into a utopian society.
All of these four areas combined would help in establish an upright and proper moral system when applied correctly.
13、亞裏士多德的倫理體係
Aristotle posited an ethical system that may be termed “self-realizationism”. When a person acts in accordance with their nature and realizes their full potential, they will do good and be content. At birth, a baby is not a person, but a potential person. In order to become a “real” person, the child’s inherent potential must be realized. Unhappiness and frustration are caused by the unrealized potential of a person, leading to failed goals and a poor life. Aristotle said, “Nature does nothing in vain.” Therefore, it is imperative for persons to act in accordance with their nature and develop their latent talents, in order to be content and complete. Happiness was held to be the ultimate goal. All other things, such as civic life or wealth, are merely means to the end. Self-realization, the awareness of one’s nature and the development of one’s talents, is the surest path to happiness.
14、亞裏士多德觀點：給公司領導的六大倫理問題
Of course Aristotle never heard of a large business or corporation. Nonetheless he did raise a set of questions that corporate leaders who wish to behave ethically need to ask themselves:
1.Am I behaving in a virtuous way?
2.How would I want to be treated if I were a member of this organization?
3.What form of social contract would allow all our members to develop their full potential in order that they may each make their greatest contribution to the good of the whole?
4.To what extent are there real opportunities for all employees to learn and to develop their talents and potential?
5.To what extent do all employees participate in the decisions that effect their own work?
6.To what extent do all employees participate in the financial gain resulting from their own ideas and efforts?
If we translate Aristotle into these modern terms, he provides us with a set of ethical questions to determine the extent to which an organization provides an environment conducive to human growth and fulfillment. And, Aristotle would say, not only does an ethical leader create that environment but, he or she does do so consciously, and not coincidentally. Motivation is important. Miami hoteliers cannot claim credit for sunny days, and leaders in Silicon Valley get no ethical credit for providing jobs that are accidentally developmental. Just because working with computers may be an inherently a developmental task, one is not necessarily a marvelous employer for providing people with that opportunity.
15、亞裏士多德觀點：領導權限
Aristotle also asks the extent to which we as leaders observe decent limits on our own power in order to allow others to lead and develop. What he’s saying is that leadership is inherently such a valuable thing in terms of our growth that, if leaders take all the opportunities to lead for themselves, and don’t give others the chance to lead, they are denying their followers the possibility of growth. That’s why he says leadership should be shared, rotated, so that everybody has the ability to participate in it. He says that too many leaders turn their people into passive recipients of their moral feats, and there is nothing inherently ethical about that.
16、亞裏士多德觀點：領導應該自省
In essence, here’s the question that Aristotle asks leaders to ask themselves. To what extent do I consciously make an effort to provide learning opportunities to everyone who works for me? To what extent do I encourage full participation by all my people in the decisions affecting their own work? To what extent do I allow them to lead in order to grow? To what extent do I measure my own performance as a manager or leader both in terms of my effectiveness in realizing economic goals and, equally, in terms of using my practical wisdom to create conditions in which my people can seek to fulfill their own potential in the workplace?
Very few CEOs would be able to respond to those questions with positive self-assessments. Indeed, many successful and admired corporate leaders consciously reject such Aristotelian measures of performance as inappropriate, impractical, and irrelevant to the task their boards have hired them to do, which is to create wealth. They say their responsibility is to their shareholders, not their employees, and if the social responsibility of employee development interferes with profit-making then trade-offs must be made.
17、亞裏士多德觀點：人之三大本性
Aristotle asserted that man had three natures: vegetable （physical）, animal （emotional） and rational （mental）. Physical nature can be assuaged through exercise and care, emotional nature through indulgence of instinct and urges, and mental through human reason and developed potential. Rational development was considered the most important, as essential to philosophical self-awareness and as uniquely human. Moderation was encouraged, with the extremes seen as degraded and immoral. For example, courage is the moderate virtue between the extremes of cowardice and recklessness. Man should not simply live, but live well with conduct governed by moderate virtue. This is regarded as difficult, as virtue denotes doing the right thing, to the right person, at the right time, to the proper extent, in the correct fashion, for the right reason.
18、埃皮克提圖的倫理體係
The Stoic philosopher Epictetus posited that the greatest good was contentment and serenity. Peace of mind was of the highest value. Self-mastery over one’s desires and emotions lead to spiritual peace. The “unconquerable will” is central to this philosophy. The individual will should be independent and inviolate. Allowing a person to disturb the mental equilibrium is in essence offering yourself in slavery. If a person is free to anger you at will, you have no control over your internal world, and therefore no freedom. Freedom from material attachments is also necessary. If a thing breaks, the person should not be upset, but realize it was a thing that could break. Similarly, if someone should die, those close to them should hold to their serenity because the loved one was made of flesh and blood destined to death. Stoic philosophy says to accept things that cannot be changed, resigning oneself to existence and enduring in a rational fashion. Death is not feared. People do not “lose” their life, but instead “return”, for they are returning to God （who initially gave what the person is as a person）. Epictetus said difficult problems in life should not be avoided, but rather embraced. They are spiritual exercises needed for the health of the spirit, just as physical exercise is required for the health of the body. He also stated that sex and sexual desire are to be avoided as the greatest threat to the integrity and equilibrium of a man’s mind. Abstinence is highly desirable. Epictetus said remaining abstinent in the face of temptation was a victory for which a man could be proud.
19、伊壁鳩魯觀點：享受
Epicurus rejected the extremism of the Cyrenaics, believing some pleasures and indulgences to be detrimental to human beings. Epicureans observed that indiscriminate indulgence sometimes resulted in negative consequences. Some experiences were therefore rejected out of hand, and some unpleasant experiences endured in the present to ensure a better life in the future. The summum bonum, or greatest good, to Epicurus was prudence, exercised through moderation and caution. Excessive indulgence can be destructive to pleasure and can even lead to pain. For example, eating one food too often will cause a person to lose taste for it. Eating too much food at once will lead to discomfort and ill-health. Pain and fear were to be avoided. Living was essentially good, barring pain and illness. Death was not to be feared. Fear was considered the source of most unhappiness. Conquering the fear of death would naturally lead to a happier life. Epicurus reasoned if there was an afterlife and immortality, the fear of death was irrational. If there was no life after death, then the person would not be alive to suffer, fear or worry; he would be non-existent in death. It is irrational to fret over circumstances that do not exist, such as one’s state in death in the absence of an afterlife.