Business Ethics: Australian Weapons Sales and Virtue Ethics Analysis

This essay delves into the ethical dilemmas surrounding the Australian government's sale of weapons, specifically to countries accused of war crimes like Saudi Arabia. It applies the framework of virtue ethics to analyze the morality of such transactions, arguing that the Australian government should act virtuously and prioritize human rights. The essay critiques the potential consequences of these sales, especially in the context of the Yemen War, and considers Kantian perspectives on goodwill and duty. It concludes that, based on international human rights principles, Australia should cease weapon sales to nations implicated in war crimes, emphasizing the importance of ethical leadership and the protection of civilians. The analysis underscores the importance of considering the character and intentions of those involved in such transactions and their implications on global human rights.

Running head: BUSINESS ETHICS 1
Business Ethics
Name
Institution

BUSINESS ETHICS 2
Introduction
There exist difficulties in ethical theories that dictate whether it is moral for countries to
be entitled to selling weapons to countries that are already accused of causing crimes wars to the
civilians. The international weapon industry has already given considerable causes of these
weapons to virtue ethics all over the world. The discussion below aims at applying the normative
approaches of ethics in answering a question about whether Australia should continue selling
weapons to countries that are already accused of war crimes (Kagan, 2018). An example of such
countries may include Saudi Arabia. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has already
revealed some evidence on signed deals between the Australian government and Saudi Arabia
about a sale of 20 units of weapons that are to be used in the Yemen War.
Application of virtue ethics on the sale of weapons
Virtue ethics emphasizes on responsibilities of characters or nations and virtues in moral
philosophy. In the case of sale of weapons by the Australian government, virtue ethics would not
consider the consequences of the business or the role of the government in providing the
weapons to countries accused of causing war crimes like Saudi Arabia (Christensen, 2015).
Virtue ethicists would advise the Australian government to act in a virtuous manner and as a
blameless nation in their decision to engage in such business with countries that are violating
human rights. The government of Australia should make a decision and decide on having ideal
character traits that would ensure that the rights of human beings are not violated by the
countries they are selling weapons to.
The government of Australia should be banned from selling weapons to Saudi Arabia
because there is enough evidence showing that the weapons are to be used in the war between
Yemen and Saudi Arabia. The ABC has disclosed the deal between the government and the

BUSINESS ETHICS 3
Saudi Arabia government on the sale of the weapons that are meant to be used in the Yemen
War. These weapons end up causing deaths to many civilians in the country which violates the
expectations of the international humanitarian laws about the rights of the people. The
government should not be looking at the favors it is receiving from the other countries after
selling the weapons (Van Zyl, 2018).
According to virtue ethics, the Australian government will be failing to perform its
distinctive functions of caring for the security and rights of all individuals in the world.
According to Aristotle's arguments in virtue ethics, the Australian government should reason
well when engaging itself in business activities such as the sale of the Weapons to countries that
would eventually cause hazards in the rights of the people. They should ensure that all human
beings in the world have a life worth living by indulging into businesses that would help such
individuals in improving their lifestyles (Proctor, 2018). The theory also expects the leaders in
Australia to allow their virtues to be determined by their common sense intuitions where the
public would admire their leadership traits.
The fact that most of these weapons affect the women and children who are not involved
in the war, feminist ethicists argues that women should be given care. Most of the behaviors in
our societies have adverse effects on the lives of women and children; the government should not
allow women to suffer so that they may claim justice. Rather they should be granted the care
they deserve to ensure they are safe (Schwartz, 2017). Therefore, the Australian government
should perform its roles after putting considerations that would ensure they are morally upright
in society, not because of the consequences of the actions but for the protection of human rights
all over the globe.

BUSINESS ETHICS 4
Kant’s ideas on virtue ethics
Kantian arguments claim that for someone or a country to be good, they must be having a
good will. He claims that the only good thing is good will itself. They go ahead in arguing that
the instincts of an individual or a country would be effective in resulting in happiness after their
behaviors (White, 2016). They claim that the reason for or purpose of engaging in action cannot
be reliable in securing happiness. Goodwill controls the behaviors of these parties in doing what
is they are obliged to do and performing their duties. It is the nature of duties that guides
individuals and nations to behave in a particular manner.
The theory believed that certain actions are prohibited in the society. Such actions as theft
and murder have no happiness after they are done. Kant believed that if an action does not
respect goals and rights of human beings, they should therefore not be done. Individuals and
nations should only involve themselves with actions that respect other people’s rights. The
theory is an example of deontological theories where rightness and wrongness of an action is not
determined by the impacts rather by fulfilment of the individual duties. Everything to be said
about someone is through evaluation of their character not their actions. If an individual is a
well-wisher, then that person is good.
Kant argues that most of the nations and individuals engage in actions that they would
wish other parties to engage (Randles & Laasch, 2016). On the same argument, it is the instincts
of the Australian government leaders that should decide whether to continue selling the weapons
to countries that are already accused of causing war and violating the rights of human beings in
the world. If Australia, as a country has the goodwill of the other countries, it can stop engaging
in businesses that would violate and deny other countries security. On the other hand, if its

BUSINESS ETHICS 5
leaders have no goodwill at their heart, they can continue selling the weapons where citizens in
countries such as Yemen would continue suffering because of the war crimes.
It is the responsibility of the government to engage in business activities that would make
the rest of the countries and people happy. Without caring for the consequences of their actions,
the Australian leaders should consider doing engaging in activities that will have negative
impacts on the rest of the nations in the world. There are international humanitarian laws that
describe clearly what is to be done by these governments in matters pertaining to war. They
should target at guaranteeing security to the civilians and lives of individuals who are not taking
an active part in the war. Kant’s arguments refute the arguments of applied theory on virtues
ethics. Virtues ethics looked at the virtue of the characters that are doing the action while Kant
ideas rely on the goodwill and instincts of the party doing the action.
Conclusion
In conclusion, due to the international human rights that dictates the duties of every
nations and matter relating to weapons, the Australian government should stop selling weapons
to countries that are already accused of war crimes. According to virtue ethics, the government
would not be acting like a virtuous nation and would not be having a good will to the people.
Human rights would be violated because of the deaths caused by access to such weapons.
Overall, there is no mandated given to the Australian government to engage in such weapon
business which would eventually cause hazards to the lives of the people. It is, therefore,
immoral to engage in behaviors that jeopardize the welfare of others. The government should be
careful to the civilians of war and be on the forefront in ensuring they play a part in ensuring the
war crimes are reduced.

BUSINESS ETHICS 6
References
Christensen, J., (2015). Weapons, Security, and Oppression: A Normative Study of International
Arms Transfers. Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(1), 23-39.
Kagan, S., (2018). Normative ethics. Routledge.
Knutsen, T. L., (2016). A history of international relations theory. Oxford University Press.
Proctor, C., (2018). Virtue Ethics in Psychotherapy: A Systematic Review of the
Literature. International Journal of Existential Psychology and Psychotherapy, 8(1), 22.
Randles, S., & Laasch, O., (2016). Theorizing the normative business model. Organization &
Environment, 29(1), 53-73.
Schwartz, M. S., (2017). Business ethics: an ethical decision-making approach (Vol. 10). John
Wiley & Sons.
Sison, A. J. G., Beabout, G. R., & Ferrero, I. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of virtue ethics in
business and management. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Thurner, P. W., Schmid, C. S., Cranmer, S. J., & Kauermann, G. (2018). Network
Interdependencies and the Evolution of the International Arms Trade. Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 0022002718801965.
Van Zyl, L. (2018). Virtue ethics: a contemporary introduction. Routledge.
White, M. D., (2016). The Virtues of a Kantian Economics. Economics and the Virtues: Building
a New Moral Foundation.