You Can Base Your Reply On This Person's Post On Ethics

You Can Base Your Reply On This Persons Postone Of The Ethical Probl

You Can Base Your Reply On This Persons Postone Of The Ethical Probl (you can base your reply on this person's post One of the ethical problems that Starbucks was faced with was that of a Utilitarianism approach to the coffee market – due to supply and demand Starbucks had to implement a program to keep the coffee market fair; due to the vast number of growing coffee producers the markets became volatile and there had to be an established market created. Starbucks had created something that is referred to as C.A.F.E Practices. C.A.F.E Practices was a program that established guidelines in for key areas; quality, economic accountability/ transparency, social responsibility and environmental leadership. (Starbucks, 2016) The point was to establish an ethical sourcing system for coffee buyers. It was deemed as a "holistic approach" as it was a sustainable solution to the growing ethical issues within the coffee trade. The program is aimed to produce better practices for farming, better quality of coffee and a better life for the farmers and its employees. Overall the program seems like a sound idea to ensure production of the following utilitarianism approach to the problem. Create a system that helps farmers, helps the corporation and helps the consumer. This is achieved by starting at a ground level – or so the approach claims. This program created a union of coffee farmers who will yield an ability to retain their livelihood based on the current status of the market. This follows the approach of the greatest good for the greatest number. Produce a system that allows farmers to ensure their economic success while in the same key turn produce a market ability to keep quality coffee prices low for the buyers and provide a quality product to the consumers. This works in the broad aspect of the total goal of utilitarianism – it produces a positive effect for all parties involved and provides an outcome and is deemed the greatest utility given the source and topic of conversation. By allowing a union or organization to take place within the market it ensure that the farmers produce supporting their economic abilities – keeps people in jobs earning a wage – produces a product for the corporation that then in turn can ensure that demand is met around the world for the love of coffee. Overall the idea is good, however, in my personal opinion it’s a bit flawed and one sided – but that’s something that I will save for my response posts this week. The idea is good – fits the guideline in some respect based on our topic of conversation and does a good job of hitting the checks and balances that are required to fit the idea and mold of the utilitarian model.)

Paper For Above instruction

In comparing virtue ethics and utilitarianism, the notion of the moral good diverges significantly, especially in the context of ethical business practices like Starbucks’ C.A.F.E. Practices. Virtue ethics emphasizes the importance of moral character and virtues such as honesty, justice, and temperance. In this framework, the moral good is achieved through individuals cultivating virtuous traits and acting in accordance with moral excellence. It highlights the development of a moral character as a lifelong pursuit, directing individuals to act rightly because it is inherently virtuous, not solely for external consequences.

In contrast, the utilitarian approach, as presented in the Starbucks post, centers on producing the greatest good for the greatest number. It evaluates actions based on their outcomes and aims to maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering. Starbucks’ C.A.F.E. Practices exemplify this by creating a system that balances the interests of farmers, consumers, and the corporation to promote sustainability, economic stability, and product quality—outcomes deemed beneficial for all involved parties. This approach is consequentialist, focusing on the results rather than the motives behind actions.

The differences in these notions significantly influence how each approach addresses ethical problems. Virtue ethics would encourage stakeholders to cultivate moral virtues, such as fairness and integrity, guiding their decisions based on what a morally virtues person would do—emphasizing moral integrity over outcomes. For instance, a virtuous coffee trader would prioritize fairness and respect for farmers, even if it meant sacrificing short-term profits. Conversely, utilitarianism might justify practices that maximize overall happiness, even if some individuals or groups are disadvantaged temporarily.

Ultimately, even if both frameworks lead to similar outcomes—such as sustainable coffee sourcing—they diverge in underlying principles. Virtue ethics emphasizes moral character and integrity as intrinsic goods, providing a more holistic and character-centered approach. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, focuses on measurable outcomes, which can sometimes justify ethically questionable means if the end results in greater happiness. These differences underscore how foundational notions of the moral good shape strategic decisions, with virtue ethics fostering moral integrity, and utilitarianism prioritizing aggregate well-being.

References

• Annas, J. (2011). Intelligent Virtue. Oxford University Press.
• Crane, T., & Matten, D. (2010). Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization. Oxford University Press.
• Driver, J. (2014). Uneasy Virtue. Cambridge University Press.
• Hursthouse, R. (1999). Virtue theory and environmental virtue ethics. Environmental Values, 8(3), 307–318.
• Johnson, R. (2014). Moral Philosophy: Theories and Approaches. Routledge.
• Moore, M. (2015). Sustainability and utilitarianism in business practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(3), 439–449.
• Scanlon, T. M. (1998). What We Owe to Each Other. Harvard University Press.
• Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Moral dilemma and policy judgment. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (pp. 213–238). Guilford Press.
• Williams, B. (1985). Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Harvard University Press.
• Zyphur, M., & Schershowitz, J. (Eds.). (2014). The Moral Compass of Companies: Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility. Routledge.