Having personal friendship can bring joy even when someone is facing the darkest period in most stressful jobs. The situation can also create an ethical minefield in which they can destroy relationships and cause friction by various working mates.
Furthermore, colleagues will try to resent the bond shared and personal feelings that will tend to interfere with the existing private, professional relationship. Socrates and Aristotle argue in their pieces of work that even strong friendship will break after experiencing workplace competition. The same issue was raised by USA Today article which was titled Friendship and Work.
They argue that total harmony cannot exist if they are all influenced by external forces such as power, status, and money (Eshleman, p. 30). Various activities carried out by supervisors in working places tend to favor a particular section of workers while making others to strain thus creating a wedge between the two sides leading to the unquestionable rivalry. In this case, many will feel that they will succeed at the expense of the friend’s inability to escalate the assigned duties.
For any final results to be positive, it would require friends to manage personal views and exhibit professional feelings that will tend to hinder job performance. Practicing good working ethics and limitation of information disclosure will act as a way of raising one’s reputation and showcase the ability one has to maintain the continued prosperity of personal relationship.
Virtue choice Socrates and Aristotle suggest that long-standing moral principles should conform to all ideal human virtues. Further, Aristotle indicates that moral behavior should always have a clear concern with the life of a person and ways of making it relevant to the society. A person who has good character is viewed as one who has attained certainly desired virtues. It has been discovered that the new attribute is entirely lying in a person’s life. Training and education is a process which usually emphasizes on the role of using critical models who help our understanding and how to engage in periods of ethical deliberation (Eshleman, p. 30).
Socrates says that it is ethically right to do a personal friend who presents an obligation for one to take action. The easiest way of making work should be morally proven on a personal level to avoid any form suffering that someone may be subjected while caring for their welfare.
The decisions that one takes become useful if they can accomplish what was started on a personal level and finally succeed in advancing the purposes every work was intended to perform (Guilln et al. p. 810). It has been discovered by Socrates that any choice that manages in producing results that are undesirable and unintended is classified as ineffective. Further, personal friendship lies solely on decisions that are made in various terms of their ability to accomplish set out goals, and it is vital for one to understand the short-term and immediate objectives of initiating a personal friendship. It is at this point that Socrates suggests that when friendship relationships are over, it becomes clear that one should be able to blow the whistle of one’s employer.
Having ethical framework requires one to focus on results of actions that need pragmatic approach. The vision needs one who uses situations that need the involvement of people who will tend to be huge beneficiaries of the friendship action taken. Socrates suggests that it has not been easy for one to predict the consequences that will prevail after a specific step has been made. Therefore, he recoils that the end will always justify the means (Guilln et al. p. 810).
The work further does not explain the requirement that suggests heinous actions that will finally result in good outcomes for specific people because some framework allows wrong steps to be taken. Additionally, it is appropriate for one to use rules that are consistent with all the expectations of all people. Carrying out friendship duties will be required in ensuring that every person should be accorded the necessary perquisite of encouraging one to possibly acting ethically. Even when one realizes terrible results, it is good for one to face different situations where there is a sense of obligation and areas where one needs to consider the values of duty as well as mandate that everyone enjoys while dispatching responsibilities to the public.
However, Aristotle claims that framework limitation appears to be cold and brings impersonal behavior where it requires actions that are well known that cannot be able to produce harms. The activities carried out can be harmful despite conforming to the right steps that are suggested in the work of Aristotle (McAuliffe, p. 70).
Personal friendship is marked as the only way that one can be able to provide a determination of various situations that are presented forwards with the intention of keeping conflict at bay without the possibility of applying rigid decisions to everyone regardless of the personal situation that finds people while in their workplaces.
By accurate framing of situations that one is facing at a personal level, specific features on how improvement can be made are brought it focus more clearly. However, it should be noted that Socrates and Aristotle have managed in focusing their attention towards obscured familiar ways that personal relationship can be improved without damage of each other’s way of visualizing different scenarios.
Eshleman, Andrew. “Moral responsibility.” (2014): 20-68
Guilln, Manuel, Ignacio Ferrero, and W. Michael Hoffman. “The neglected ethical and spiritual motivations in the workplace.” Journal of business ethics 128.4 (2015): 803-816.
McAuliffe, Donna. Interprofessional ethics: Collaboration in the social, health and human services. Cambridge University Press, (2014): 68-98