To conclude with, some economists support that the ethics coexist with the enterprising practice and that the social responsibility of an enterprise is to provide products and services in a profitable and moral way, and overcame the problems of fraud, existence of monopolies, big rally of economic force in the hands of few, poor and the wastefulness of natural resources as the frames of this new environment, the businessman beyond his traditional activities acquired also two new; he takes into consideration in each decision the wider economic and social consequences that arise from his actions, and collaborates with the government in the application of public policy. In that way not only the whole economy is improving with positive results for the manager and the enterprise, but also has been achieved resolution of such socio-economic problems, that if they were left unverifiable would give the stimulus for bigger requirements of interventions in the operation of enterprises.
Some virtue theorists might respond to this overall objection with the notion of a "bad act" also being an act characteristic of vice [ citation needed ] . That is to say that those acts that do not aim at virtue, or stray from virtue, would constitute our conception of "bad behavior". Although not all virtue ethicists agree to this notion, this is one way the virtue ethicist can re-introduce the concept of the "morally impermissible". One could raise objection with Foot that she is committing an argument from ignorance by postulating that what is not virtuous is unvirtuous. In other words, just because an action or person 'lacks of evidence' for virtue does not, all else constant , imply that said action or person is unvirtuous.