Running head: THE MYTHOLOGY OF VIRTUE 1

Bill Gates and the Mythology of Virtue

Cassandra N. Tribe-Scott

ETH 501: Business Ethics

Dr. Bonnie Adams

November 25, 2017

THE MYTHOLOGY OF VIRTUE 2
Bill Gates and the Mythology of Virtue

Bill Gates is the subject of much controversy when discussed in terms of virtue ethics.

Depending on the phase of life examined he can be seen as behaving in both ethical and

unethical manners. This case will focus only on his actions since leaving Microsoft and

concentrating on running the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This case proposes that while

Mr. Gates has evolved to fulfill many of the individual virtues described in the virtue ethics

school that the same school of thought would find his current public behavior to be most

unethical. The cause for this judgement rests not in the individual acts he commits, but in the

overall impact of the ends of his acts on society as a whole.

2 virtues and a vice considered

This case assignment looks at the two virtues, sincerity and prudence; and the one vice,

insensibility, as they relate to Bill Gates. The 2017 online version of Merriam-Webster

dictionary provides the following definitions for these words. Sincerity is considered to be the

state of being free from hypocrisy. Prudence implies skill and good judgment in the use of

resources. Insensibility refers to the state of lacking delicacy or refinement. While there are

several other permutations offered by the dictionary for these words the portions of the

definitions listed here are those which most apply when considering value ethics and the actions

of Bill Gates.

Sincerity

The definition of a word in a dictionary of common usage relates only somewhat to its

definition in philosophical terms. Sincerity, which Merriam-Webster (2017) defines as the state

of being free of hypocrisy is defined further by Brusseau (2014) as the ability to reveal yourself
THE MYTHOLOGY OF VIRTUE 3
to others with confidence that youll be respected. It fits between the extremes of frigidity and

emoting. Virtue ethics considers the state of sincerity to be the mean between the deficiency of

ironical depreciation and the extreme of boastfulness (Lewis, 2013). Returning to

Merriam-Webster (2017) we can see that the common definition of boastfulness is excessive

pride in oneself while ironical and depreciation combine to be defined as incongruity between

the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result, and to lower in

honor, esteem or value.

Is Bill Gates sincere?

Gates falls within the ideal mean of this virtue, achieving sincerity, while simultaneously

engaging in both its deficiency and excess. McIlvaine (2016) points to Gates mellowing and the

ironical depreciation he engages in when out on speaking tours to promote the works of his

foundation. When contrasted with his assumption that he and only he can correct the market

inequities in his target areas, he then enters into the excess realm of boastfulness (Bowman,

2012).

It is that very overconfidence in himself that allows him to be sincere in other aspects of

his life. Mr. Gates firmly believes that poor and underserved persons cannot act in a rational

manner that would contribute to society and that society is not making an effort to act to change

this state. While he may reject the title of philanthrocapitalism, he engages in it fully with his

foundation (The Economist, 2006). Gates has devoted his work to the end goal of creating a fully

rational society achieving a profound level of sincerity in the direction, action and intentions of

his life. That said, there are interpretations of this virtue ethic that would claim him to be most

insincere as his engagement of both extremes of the scale implies that he is not publically and
THE MYTHOLOGY OF VIRTUE 4
repeatedly honest about his motivations and intentions in executing what is perceived as good

works (Yount, 2012).

The master of prudence, or not?

The same arguments put forth under the evaluation of Gates, his foundation and the

principals of philanthrocapitalism apply to the assessment of how well he fulfills the virtue of

prudence. It can be said, on the surface, that he is a master of prudence using a shrewd

investment strategy to fund his philanthropy. On closer examination that mastery falls apart. As

Piller (2014) points out the investment strategy pursued by the Bill and Melinda Gates

Foundation is dependent on the success of industries that cause the issues they then fund

initiatives to resolve. With this knowledge it can be determined that Bill Gates is prudent only in

the short term but is actually wasteful with his management of resources. A more prudent action

would be to divest from industries that create the problems you profess to and engage in invo

want to solve.

Bill Gates and the vice of insensibility

If there is one vice that Mr. Gates seems to exemplify through the work with his

foundation it would be that of insensibility. That is defined by Brusseau (2012) as being the state

of being insensible, or actions and words not making rational sense. Again, by virtue of his

practice of the deficiency of sincerity (ironical depreciation) Mr. Gates appears to have humbly

embarked on a path that reflects a sincere self that engages in prudence. As Piller (2014)

demonstrates the relation of his deficiency in prudence is that which then creates the vice of

insensibility. On the surface Mr. Gates appears the epitome of sensibleness, but on closer

examination the long term ends of his practices would be deemed insensible by political and
THE MYTHOLOGY OF VIRTUE 5
business evaluations.

Why does philanthrocapitalism promote insensibility?

A criticism of the trend of philanthrocapitalism, of which Mr. Gates can be considered

the poster child of promoting its adoption, is it hides the reality that the US government has

radically decreased funding for initiatives to reduce instances of disorder and disease, aid

programs and investments in research that holds the promise of creating lasting change

(McGoey, 2013). The monies given by Mr. Gates, while astonishing, are far less than what was

given by the US government in the 1950s for resolution efforts. As astonishing as Mr. Gates

funding is, it is also far less than what was historically given by industrialists to promote social

change and public health in the past.

Has the ruthless and cutthroat businessman changed?

In assessing whether or not Mr. Gates ranks as one of the worlds most generous

philanthropists one must be careful about which statistics are examined. Martin and Loudenback

(2015) created a list that also puts forth a generosity index (GI) based on the amount of their

total net worth they have donated. It is interesting to note that Mr. Gates only scores 32% GI. His

rating is far overshadowed by the 966% of Sulaiman bin Abdul Aziz Al Rajhi, who gave away

that much of his personal fortune within 3 years of leaving industry to head his foundation; and

Charles Francis Feeney with 420,000% , which he accomplished in a span of 10 years.

The mythology of the changed man

The United States of America is now ranked #2 on the World Giving Index, a fall in

ranking from the top position that occurred within the past two years (Charities Aid Foundation,

2017). Over 70% of Americans donate an average of 3.8% of their income, with the majority of
THE MYTHOLOGY OF VIRTUE 6
donations coming from those who earn less than $30,000 per year (and give 4.1% of API). The

higher the income the less the percent of API donated, but the sums are larger.

Mr. Gates stands out in contrast to the culture by giving 33% of his income while

pledging to eventually give away all of his wealth. For the US culture, which emphasizes gain

for personal use, this is an anomaly. The perception of Gates as a profoundly generous man is

based upon the sum given and the promise not on the reality of the percent given and what that

percent means. The perception of the ruthless and cutthroat business man of the

pre-foundation mythology having changed is comforting to a society that is beginning to give

less and less and needs to feel comfortable about it (Eskine, 2012). If Gates can transform later

in life, then so can everyone, so there is no need to change now.

The growing alarm about Gates and his giving

There is alarm in the medical and public health community over the reality of Gates

foundation grant gifts. With less than 1.5% going to public-sector health agencies and less than

6% going to countries that were middle or low income there is a concern about the true

intentions of Mr. Gates purpose (Bowman, 2012). Having staffed his foundation with persons

with ties to the US pharmaceutical agencies, aggressively lobbied against agreements that would

have allowed intellectual property patents to be shared (allowing patented medications to be

produced in low income countries at a lower price) and gone on record at Davos (ibid) as stating

that the purpose of life is to pursue self-interest and care for others -- many public health

researchers and providers wonder who Mr. Gates is including on his list of worthy of helping.

Conclusion

The potential for undue policy and procedure influence by a foundation with no oversight
THE MYTHOLOGY OF VIRTUE 7
and massive funding resources is concerning people. As is the effect of philanthrocapitalism in

reducing larger aid and research block resources and creating a patchwork of smaller funds

with greater competition. These concerns suggest that the ruthless and cutthroat business

man has not changed, but only changed the industry he wishes to dominate and control. Mr.

Gates exists within the extremes of virtue ethics, and may be a modern cautionary example of

virtue usurped.
THE MYTHOLOGY OF VIRTUE 8

References

Bowman, A. (2012, Apr 1). The flip side to Bill Gates' charity billions. New Internationalist.

Retrieved from https://newint.org/features/2012/04/01/bill-gates-charitable-giving-ethics

Brusseau, J. (2012). Chapter 4.4: Virtue theory. Business Ethics. Lardbucket Books. Retrieved

from: https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/business-ethics/s08-04-virtue-theory.html

Charities Aid Foundation. (2017). World Giving Index. Retrieved from

https://www.cafonline.org

/about-us/publications/2017-publications/caf-world-giving-index-2017

Eskine, K. (2012, May 15). Wholesome foods and wholesome morals? Social Psychological and

Personality Science, 4 (2), pp. 251-254. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com

/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550612447114

insensibiity. 2017. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insensibility

McGoey, L. (2013, Apr 23). Philanthrocapitalism, the Gates Foundation and global health - an

interview with Linsey McGoey. Retrieved from http://www.hinnovic.org/

philanthrocapitalism-gates-foundation-global-health-with-linsey-mcgoey/

McIlvaine, A. (2016, February 4). Bill Gates ruthless management style of yore. HRE Daily.

Retrieved from http://blog.hreonline.com/2016/02/04/bill-gates-

ruthless-management-style-of-yore/

Piller, C. (2014, August 24). How the Gates Foundations investments are undermining its own

good works. The Nation. Retrieved from https://www.thenation.com/article/

THE MYTHOLOGY OF VIRTUE 9
how-gates-foundations-investments-are-undermining-its-own-good-works/

prudence. 2017. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prudence

sincerity. 2017. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved November 21, 2017, from

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sincerity

The Economist. (2006, Feb 23). The birth of philanthrocapitalism: The leading new

philanthropists

see themselves as social investors. The Economist. Retrieved from

http://www.economist.com/node/5517656

Yount, D. (2012). Aristotle's ethical theory: Virtue ethics. Retrieved from https://www.saylor.

org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/BUS205-11.3.1-Aristotle%E2%80%99s-Ethical-Th

eory.pdf