The moral point of view refers to people’s perspective on an issue based on whether the issue is deemed morally applaudable or morally right or wrong. So it involves the resolutions or laws created based on a larger perspective about what is right or wrong, one that affects or impacts more than merely one person, and therefore doesn’t take a person’s self-interest into account. The point of view can be identified by two characteristics: a best practice of deferring to reason; in other words, the resolutions should be the outcome of thoughtful sound reasoning, rather than of emotions, established morality, or devoid of compelling argument; and a best practice of impartiality, taking into account the interests of the masses as equal, rather than being committed solely to self-interest. These characteristics may seem to be contradictory, however, based on the fact that human beings are so vastly multi-faceted, they are not. Rather, they mirror how we are wired: to act by reason, and to act by emotion. The question then, becomes, Why and when should human beings operate from a moralistic point of view? This question is important because it hints the larger question of why the moral point of view is important. The moral point of view is important in the balance of the two human tendencies; moreover, it is important because it addresses the connectivity among human beings, moving us from our individual silos and into the sphere of relationship with others, their concerns and their resolutions. According to the Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy (2004): “Moralists are often in conflict about the many varied points of view. Modern moral philosophy asserts that from the moral perspective morality is the sole important thing in a person’s life, but contemporary virtue ethics states that morality is only a part of what is valuable to human beings, who should have other concerns. Based on this, the moral question should be that of Socrates’, “How should I live?’ So in deciding between individual rationality and the moral point of view a set of criteria for rationality has to be determined.” Regardless of what this criteria, in business it is all about the bottom line. So, can we justify using morals in Business, or would that be antithetical to the nature of business itself? Is business focused on self-interest? To what extent does “the customer is always right” seeps over into self-interest?
Business people must operate from the moral point of view. While the nature of businesses is to make a profit which may sometimes seem contrary to morality, it is important for businesses to operate within the moral point of view because it is a moral view point since it takes into account the beliefs, contemplations and resolutions of a large number of persons, customers. Operating outside of this viewpoint could potentially halt the profit that is itself the raison d’être for the business. This, of course, is not to say or to imply that there shouldn’t be established rules as regulations, based on whatever the underlying criteria for those are, but it is to say that a mixture of reason and morals have to be used in business. Moreover, it is to say that because of the larger-than-life nature of morals, because we can organize them neatly so as to manage them, the moral point of view should always trump the reason or the law.
In considering the stance business people should take in day-to-day operations, we will look at how four philosophical theories: Kantian Ethics, Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics and Contract Ethics stack up against each other based on the circumstances that justifies a business practice, as well as the method of that particular practice will be carried out.
Utilitarianism refers to a decision that hinges upon the outcome of the greatest amount of benefits to the greatest number of persons, in other words, “the greater good concept”. The morality of Utilitarianism extends only as far as its definition, and takes into consideration only the greater good regardless of how many and which other issues of morality are at stake. For example, a person may sacrifice the truth if it means a favorable outcome for more people. This can become a crisis when manipulation, exaggerated deception, and coercion are involved as we see with the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of “Extraordinary Renditions” to get information from persons who they consider to be terrorists. Not only is it committing a similar crime to the one they seek information to eradicate, they have shown themselves to the world as hypocrites. Hypocrisy itself is an issue for moral judgment. Had the CIA not used extreme measures there may have been more instances of terrorism similar to the attacks on the United States in September of 2001 with the destruction of the two World Trade Center buildings. In effect, it is fairly easy to make moral decisions using the Utilitarian Ethics. Let’s use the terms “safety over harm” to define the principles that will direct the decision, since “good” and “evil” are themselves terms that have to be defined base on culture, religion, nationality among other variables. So applying the Utilitarian method to decision-making is as simple as seeing how much harm versus how much safety will be applied to how many persons if this decision is made. When we apply the utilitarian theory to business the terms change from “safety” and “harm” to “monetary gain” over “monetary costs.” So, principle applied, if lying would produce the greatest amount of financial gain for the most amount of persons, then a lie is the way to go. Why is this moral view point necessary here? The complexity of the question is how can we merge need for profits with the ethical concerns of the customers? And, who gets to decide, the business, the customers or the government? Ultimately the customers decide, but they decide through the minds of the business owners, and in many cases the government that make the laws that govern the businesses. Because the impact of a truth could potentially damage the number of persons towards financial destruction, and who would want that? A depicting example of this is the firing of older worker to bring in a younger work force. Deceit and other “greater good” methods are used to shake the status quo and make those workers unhappy to the point of resigning or becoming non-productive. When they become unproductive, there is greater grounds to fire them on.
Unlike utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics falls in the category of the deontological moral theory which has to do with a person’s call to duty. It disregards the absolutes of whether something like theft or murder, for that matter, is wrong or right by not attributing an “evil” or “good” factor to it, and considers only the motivation that caused the action. It is however, unlike teleological ethics which although it has to do with a person’s call to duty, depends on whether the action of the call will end in a desirable or good outcome. In Kantian Ethics what is right or correct has nothing at all to do with character, nor outcomes; rather, it has to do with whether a persons actions can be done by all, and whether the actions of a person will infringe on the due respect of others, or is just done selfishly. If a person were to infringe on others, or if others were unable to do the action, then the behavior should not be performed.
What Kant believed was that the over-arching mother of morality lies within commandments that are categorizes actions. Those laws should not be broken regardless of the situation. Norman E. Bowie in “A Kantian Approach to Business Ethics” observes that when a business or corporation employ practices or act toward increased profit, it is a selfish act; however, he states that is not the case since publicly held corporations are obligated to make a profit based on terms of their incorporation, shareholder interests as bound by law and unspoken public contract. It could well be that managers of these types of corporations have promised to achieve profits. Therefore, Bowie continues, the Marriott Corporation is a moral one because it is making good on its obligation to earn, and to do its duty. Kant theory like the utilitarian one is relevant to business ethics. As far as duty goes, if we consider the bottom line to be non-monetary like worker fulfillment, and a democratic workplace for example it is understandable. Bowie ends by saying, “Perhaps we should view profits as a consequence of good business practices rather than as the goal of business”.
Virtue Ethics has to do with virtues like honesty, truth and such the like. It is exemplified by decisions that are made based on the character of a person or set of persons who abide by these wholesome traits. In business, this type of ethics can only be applied to businesses that are categorized as practices, like the medical and legal professional among similar businesses. The application is applied to the practitioner rather that to the practice. Companies, therefore have to ensure that their managers are well trained in acceptable virtuous behaviors because workplace behavior can be the demise of a business depending on whether that behavior is good or bad. Customers can make value judgments about the company which may be solely the individual’s, but a customer may trump it up to “they are all like that at Whatever Company.” Also, often times it is not the workers who display good virtues that the customers see, it is the ones who don’t. That may well be because everyone expects companies to have some virtue. So what are these behaviors that go into making a company virtuous? Workers have to take responsibility for their actions good or bad; they have to be trustworthy, they have to be respectful.
Contract Ethics, with deals with justice and fairness and is another moral viewpoint that can be applied to business. Rather than the messy business of duty and virtue, the viewpoint build upon the ideas of the social contract, that says that as citizens we give ourselves to be governed in exchange for order and for living without the responsibility of “political” matters. Contract ethics is built upon the principles of social and political justice. It assumes no knowledge about persons or situations so as to prevent emotions and such the like from taking root and influencing decisions, but takes into account that all customers have base equal rights to pursue good. As such, it insists upon equal opportunity to all for educational empowerment and stable employment. With the glass ceiling still intact this ethics should be more wide-spread throughout businesses. If we were to operate on principles rather than on what is right in the moment, better outcomes would be facilitated.
In conclusion, I am convinced that business practices must be fueled by a moral point of view. In actuality, I don’t even believe that it is possible to make business decision, policy or best practice without intrusion form so moral perspective. Our society is wired as a political one that are never truly without a moral viewpoint. Even in my human imagination I can’t envision a baby being raised in any society without being taught to choose one thing over another, without it being based on some paradigm. In his article, “Ethical theory and business practices: the case of discourse ethics” (2006), Thomas Beschorner states that “we are living in an unjust world that because of globalization is realizing a massive number of businesses. With that comes varied business practices, many of which can be considered unjust versus those that most consider regular business practices.” Society as a whole is now challenged with dealing with these issues. Beschorner goes on to say that “this poses two important questions, ‘How can business contribute to more justice in an unbalanced world?’ and ‘Why should it?” Since business it the true mechanism fostering the globalization that the Information Age, specifically the Internet has brought us, it has to be the catalyst for fueling justice. If we being with Maslow and his hierarchy of basic human needs and follow through, we will notice that at the core we all want basically the same things as human beings. The challenge in this “unbalanced world” is the number of cultures that dictate what those things look like. A business can introduce products that will blur the line of what we want; their advertisements can lead people into deciding what is truly best for them. The onus is upon businesses to create this justice since their customers are global and without customers they cease to exist.
References
Bowie, N. E. (2002). A Kantian approach to business ethics. Ethical issues in business: a philosophical approach. Donaldson, T., Werhane, P.H. and Cording M. Eds. (2002) 7th Ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 61-71.
Bunnin, N & Yu, J. Eds. (2004). The blackwell dictionary of western philosophy. DOI:10.1111/b.9781405106795.2004/x
Beschorner, T. Ethical theory and business practices: the case of discourse ethics. Journal of Business Ethics (2006) 66: 127-139. Doi:1007/s10551-006-9049-x
