|
|
Personal and Business Ethics |
|
ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES A person's "ethics" is the moral
standard that a person uses in choices of what is
"right" or "wrong". Not all choices are
ethical ones. The choice of "4" or "5" in
providing the "right" solution to the problem
"What is 2 +2?" is not an ethical issue. Nor is the
answer to the question "What is the speed of light?"
Many solutions are known or can be tested through an accepted
formalized logical system, such as mathematics or
"scientific methods". Derived from the Greek word
ethos, meaning "character", ethics is "our
character". It is how we judge our and other's choices
regarding behavior to one another. Ethics applies to social
action, the "rightness" of which can be tested only by
knowing the standard that is applied. Ethics also applies to
"choice", so the absence of any ability (or
opportunity) to make a choice argues that behavior that is
compelled or made in ignorance may not fit the notion of
"ethical behavior". Although we may not be aware of
them, when we make choices there are competing standards, or
ethical perspectives, that govern people's behavior.
Each of these categories identifies a different
kind of standard for making choices, and refers to some interest
that is valued or preferred. The implication of this is that most
ethical choices benefit someone or, at the least, satisfy some
interest that YOU have. We may not share the same interest or
preference, so there can be a temptation to judge others' ethical
choices as "wrong". The exercise here is not to judge,
but this is not an argument for what some call
"situational" ethics -- ethical behavior may, or may
not, differ with circumstances. I simply wish to point out that
since decisions often are made on the basis of an ethic
perspective, it is useful to understand how we discriminate
between "right" and "wrong".
Egoism as an ethical perspective is not a "free-for-all" contest, either. Self-interests must be pursued within the law. But, the objective of the law ought to be libertarian - that is, to facilitate the greatest possible liberty of individuals and of businesses constrained only by the higher need that all be able to compete fairly and unimpeded by the force of others.
SOCIAL GROUP RELATIVISM If not the self as the proper referent to "right" conduct, then the reference is the expectations of others - our social group. Social group relativism is the view that we assess what is proper conduct by understanding what our social group expects of us. While the term "relativism" has come to imply that "any thing goes", here the term simply means that standards of conduct in our personal life and in business are governed by the expectations of others on our behavior. Simply, "We conform." We identify with several groups that comprise a larger society. Our personal identity is crowded with social categories which are assigned to us and to which we assign ourselves - race, sex, ethnicity, religion, membership in social groups, political affiliations, allegiances to colleges and sports teams, age grouping, and the family into which we are born, to name a few of the social groups in which we have "membership". All of these social groups or categories identify to others, and to ourselves, who we are. The values or expectations that each of these "groups" share are varied and are sometimes conflictive for the individual. Members of social groups to which we belong impose expectations on how we should behave. Because we "belong", we also share these standards, self-impose the group's ethics, and regulate the behavior of other members to the group's standards. Group interests can articulate the self-interests of a collection of individuals, such as a union or professional organization. Groups can also express interests that seem antithetical to its members; for example, the Heaven's Gate group was held together by a shared belief that the world would soon end and that members would be saved by a spaceship once they shed their early forms (committed suicide). Because group pressure to conform to what others expect from us can exercise a very strong influence, groups can and do extract conformity to its ethical standards by subordinating the interests of the individual to that of the group. An Example: You are the Personnel Manager at a large corporation (group membership is the company). The company is about to lay off a number of employees because of a downturn in the market. Your boss hands you the list of people who will be "laid off" and instructs you not to tell anyone until the formal announcement is made next month. A close friend of yours is on the list to be laid off. Your friend is about to buy a new house. Do you tell your friend that he/she may not or will not have a job next month? There may be no "good" answer to this kind of dilemma, but self-interest would argue to secure one's own job by complying with the boss's instruction to not tell. A similar decision can be derived from "social relativism" by identifying the company as the relevant referent: "I am the company's Personal Manager and my company requires that I remain silent on this." If the solution is to tell the friend because he's about to make a major mistake - the socially relevant referent for action is the friendship group. Social group relativism may not pose a clear choice of action until we have identified what social group is most relevant to our actions. This may vary given own estimation of loyalty to as group. Since we belong to many groups, this ethical perspective can produce conflictive or "wishy-washy" decisions: "I will tell my friend and swear him/her to secrecy." But, if social relativism is the perspective to apply, what is the moral obligation of the friend to also tell his other friend about the impeding lay-offs? In business, social relativism often takes the form of industry practices. Many small businesses pay minimum wage and provide no health insurance not only because it may be in their financial interests to do so, but also because it is an accepted industry practice.
CULTURAL RELATIVISM In this perspective the ethical standard is culture, widely shared values. People comply with cultural values because they have been learned, communicated and reinforced through a variety of mechanisms that include child rearing, education, and participation in society's institutions. Unlike social relativism, compliance is not so much a matter of trying to conform to other's expectations, as it is a matter of complying with society's values that have become our own values. Cultural values are formalized into law when compliance is especially important to society. For example, Americans, as a culture, value football, but an American who hates football is no threat to American culture, and the widely held value is not formalized. The right to vote, however, is a core value that has progressively become formalized into the legal system. If someone attempted to obstruct the exercise of this value, this conduct would be seen not only "unethical", but illegal. The punitive consequences of breaking the law insure compliance to the important standards of conduct. Culture is not universally shared; and, this leads to conflicting ethical standards. In the U.S. it is deemed illegal and "wrong" for a man to have more than one wife at the same time. In many countries this practice is legal and permitted. A polygamous family from such a country would be confronted with serious legal problems in the U.S. Prior to the 1960's many States enforced "blue laws", laws that prohibited businesses from being open on Sunday because of dominant religious values that were expressed in law. Violators were "unethical", and operated illegally. Cultural vales are not universal, not are they fixed. For example, American cultural acceptance of, and law regarding, child labor in this country has changed over the past century. Only recently, however, have we attempted to impose this legal and cultural standard on the import of manufactured goods from other countries. Of course, there are many examples of how cultural and legal standards of conduct have changed from the treatment of women and minorities to product liability standards. Although not fixed in time, the law as a standard for ethical behavior is an attempt to forge a national consensus on individual conduct. In the case of child labor laws, the standard is high. In the case of health care entitlement, the standard in the U.S. is not as high as most European countries. Cultural relativism also does not lead to a universal sense of "right" conduct. What is "right" is governed by the national culture to which the decision maker belongs. As business becomes more international, conflictive cultural norms and laws become problematic in trying to act "ethically". Until recently most European businesses freely paid "fees" to agents in third world countries for delivering large government contacts because it made business sense; it was legal; and, "everyone else paid bribes." American businesses, however, were disadvantaged in this kind of competition because the practice of paying bribes for contracts was "unethical", illegal, and followed by other American businesses only at their peril of being caught and convicted in U.S. courts.
UTILITARIANISM Sometimes called "situational ethics", utilitarianism accepts that there are competing obligations that are prioritized by some contextual standard. The "right" thing to do depends not so much on an ethical standard, but on an appraisal of the situation, the alternative courses of act available, and the consequences of the choices available. A contemporary of Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham developed a political theory that attempts to resolve conflicts between individual and collective demands on one's actions - utilitarianism. The theory's fundamental proposition is "the greatest good for the greatest number." The utilitarian ethic requires that a decision-maker assess the choices of all who are involved in its outcome, then commit to an action that is satisfying to a majority. When a decision harms the greatest number of people involved, it is "wrong" Individuals sacrifice their personal interests when these do not serve the general welfare. This majoritarian ethic, however, has difficulties. Who is the majority whose interests are to be considered? Is it "right" for a majority to suppress a minority? The question evokes our history of slavery, the German extermination of Jews, and current conflicts in Ireland, Palestine, the former Yugoslavia, and Rwanda. The ancient Greeks distrusted democracy simply because it had the potential to lead to a tyranny of the majority. John Stuart Mill argued for a more complex utilitarian philosophy that equates utilitarian with "practical", thus "situational ethics". Mill argued that the greatest number do not always know the common good. Nor for that matter would an individual pursuing his own interest, necessarily contribute to the common good, as Adam Smith had argued. What is discernible as socially good arises from experience, practice, trial and error. Most, importantly, the social good emerges from the creation of the kind of society that engenders competing interests and ideas of the "good". Because all must be considered equal, the greatest good lies in the greatest liberty for individuals to pursue their own self-expression of what is good. The utilitarianism of Mill attempts to balance the rights of minorities with the rights of the majority by limiting majoritarian actions through the requirement that minority interests are to be protected. But, Mill is also arguing that the common good is served by allowing conflict among competing interests. The common good is worked out through a shared experience of what is beneficial to the community. The best example I know of that illustrates Mill's approach is taking place in Arizona where conflictive interests among cattlemen, environmentalists, and the government are being resolved to find workable solutions in land management. Cattlemen need cheap grazing lands; environmentalists seek protection of wild life; and, the government attempts to enforce property and environmental laws. Across the three parties it is difficult to assess what is the "public good" and a majority point of view is not very helpful. The solution required that all parties cooperate to express their competing needs and work together to find a workable solution agreeable to all. This was found through shared land ownership and shared stewarding of the land to accommodate, to an acceptable level, everyone's interests. To find this "common ground" required that each surrender personal or group interests to commit to a solution in the "public good.".
DEONTOLOGY The deontological perspective is sometimes stated simply as: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The root word deon is from the Greek meaning "obligation" or "commitment". The philosophical theory of deontology is formalized in the writing of Immanuel Kant in the early 1800's. Kant identified that the basis of ethics is the obligation, or the duty, to do what is "right". What is "right" comes from an idealized notion of what a better world ought to be. The duty to make this a better world is something we take upon ourselves. Kant agrees that not everyone in all cases is capable of this. And, in certain circumstances there may be a compulsion to act otherwise. But, if you ask, "What is the 'right' thing to do?", imagine the world or the circumstance as it should be. Then, act on the merits of this Ideal. By raising the very question is an action or decision "right", "good" or "bad", we raise the question whether it is something we are willing to do, irrespective of the number of others who may do it. Kant termed the Ideals that people share about how people ought to behave a "categorical imperative" - a transcendent concept of "rightness of action" that is accessible to anyone who thinks about the world as it ought to be, our place in the world to foster this ideal, and our relationship with others that helps to create the world as it ought to be. To many religious people this will sound like "theology", but deontology as a field of ethics attempts to forge a concept of "right" that is more universal than a religion. Telling the truth, for example, is a moral obligation, not because it may be instructed by religion. Truth telling is a duty because we understand what it is like to be lied to. We can imagine that universally others share this dislike of being lied to. Falsehoods create distrust, undermine relationships, and if acted on, can lead to disaster. To the deontologists, this is not a utilitarian value - tell the truth only when it serves "good" purposes. To deontology, truthfulness is simply "right" as an ideal; and, we assume the obligation to commit to the Ideal as something of value in, and of itself. We opt to tell the truth because we understand that it is the "right" thing to do. As suggested in the ethical frameworks presented, we do not all see "right" in the same way. Deontology suggests that there is a universal Ethic that is available to all of us. This is an empirical problem that in Kant's reasoning is not especially a problem. As it is not possible to "prove" the existence of God, it is not possible to "prove" the existence of universal truths not rooted in scientific inquiry. But, I can conceive of a better way, a higher level of conduct; and, it is faith or belief in the value of this Ideal that connects me to an obligation to act accordingly - and, nothing else. There are many cases of business decisions based simply on doing the "right" thing. A few years ago when a New England textile mill burned down, the owner opted to continue paying the salaries and benefits of workers while the plant was being re-built. Companies such as Johnson and Johnson and Dayton Hudson spend large amounts of money for community services in the areas in which they operate as part of their desire to be good citizens. And, many small businesses spend the money to provide health insurance for its employees, simple because it is the right thing to do.
|
| NEXT |
 |