The Cambridge philosopher Henry Sidgwick (1903) suggested that
The Cambridge philosopher Henry Sidgwick (1903) suggested that
We may thus explore this line for any inquiry into moral duty and conduct in business affairs irrespective of variability in the business world and between actors within it and their capacity for rationality/ irrationality.
Sidgwick argued that if we do not know the "ethical" targets applicable to everyone regardless of culture and circumstances, then how can we identify what actions are needed to be "ethical" (and vice versa). He felt that certain basics (ultimate ends/goals) of ethical human existence were universal truths and that these therefore
Such points contribute to the kind of managed objectives which those in business seek as they wrestle with uncertainty. If a pot pourri of moral beliefs are in circulation - in a community, in a firm, between suppler and customer, between employer and employee - then irrespective of the law, who is right and who is wrong? How to we demonstrate/prove that A is right and B is wrong? In comparison to the ethicalabsolute view, a relativist would be very sceptical of the existence of universal moral rules. For them there is no fixed moral knowledge with certain universal basics (ethical duties and obligations) that must be applied by all people regardless of belief, creed, following etc. Such rules a realist would say are a form of truth (knowledge).
Moral absolute viewpoints struggle to overcome the manifest problems of power and selfishness. One culture or group or individual can impose its moral values on another. My moral truth is the correct one. This may be reflected in strident religious viewpoints which deny and may even seek to suppress alternative ways of believing. Christianity was barbarically imposed on the South American civilisations. Relativists today would see this as an expression of arrogant, Euro-centric imperialism leading to the demise of unique cultures which have their own ethical beliefs. The emphasis today is much more oriented to respecting different cultures and their customs.
But do we really accept that anything goes? Clearly there are implications for a multinational business or even one that is trading globally. Is it right to have dealings with or speak out against any business person or community that practices
Absolutists would point to such examples and suggest that regardless of differences in behaviour between one group, certain basic, core rules are always true and obligatory in terms of guiding our behaviour. Ritual circumcision of women may be a continuing practice in some parts of the world but an argument that this is not immoral because of local belief and centuries old custom would not be held to be valid. Some of us once believed that the earth was flat and that burning dissenting priests at the stake was permissible. Some moral positions are tenable (true) and some are not. We have a problem however in defining the core values. Which ones and why?
Absolutists claim that the core values enable societies to exist and men and women to realise their purpose of being. Hitler's Nazis had clear, cohesive social rules but would relativists have opposed the Allies interfering with Fascist values. A UN Coalition - albeit falteringly have opposed ethic cleansing in Bosnia. Yet some might advocate the utmost caution in interfering in the sovereign rights and internal practices of a country. Are the interests of intervening powers altruistic or economic?
Sidgwick and Mackie although philosophers are still men of their time. Late Victorian Cambridge was enjoying debates about man, mind and God. In such a setting absolute (humanistic) purposes for mankind offer insurance when the need for a deity is queried. Mackie in a post-war, turbulent world, pluralist context sketched out a practical system of morality whilst nevertheless concluding that absolutes could not be determined. He debated frameworks of principle and process as conflict reduction mechanisms which members of a society might reference as they bring ethical form out of formlessness. For Mackie "right conduct" was a subjective, interpretive matter, eminently worthy of systematic deliberation to give an informed, practical framework for ethical "principled" debate (vs absolute principles), problem-solving and elicitation of checks and balances and methods of resolution.
Ethical aspirations and rationality for Mackie and ethical-relativists are determined not by a free-for-all, anything-goes world but by social interactions which
This discussion of absolute and relative perspectives highlights the value of still considering whether basic, acceptable-to-all formulations - within a bounded problem area (e.g. business) - are possible. The UN Declaration of Human Rights, ethical values that are embodied in law or company codes of conduct include principled expressions that transcend individual freedoms, the pluralities of politics and rivalries of competing sectional interest groups or business rivals. The relativist problem in stressing pluralism and variability is being sucked into wooliness, vacuousness or "anything goes" provided you can avoid retribution.
Unrestrained murder could never be permitted in a stable, orderly community that wants to prosper and enable all its citizens to live their lives to the full. Social codes govern theft, property rights, matters relating to individual liberty and obligation. Exceptions to the rules are defined e.g. the grounds on which people may kill others e.g. in self-defence or war or ritual sacrifice as are community sanctions/punishments for those breaching the conventions.
Legal/societal frameworks reflect "specific cases" in the historical and cultural context. Specific rules may not reflect principles which those taking an absolute line on ethics would argue apply universally and independently of context. Such principles may relate to concepts and fundamental perceptsions of rights and duties in respect of liberty, life, truth, children, the common good. The Athenians were quite happy about the practice of slavery and some comunities still exclude women or mistreat another tribe.
Even Sidgwick accepted that it is mightily difficult to conceive of, specify and agree "absolute, universal to all, high level, ethical precepts". It is easier if we can attribute such rules to a deity - the faithful within their system of belief and without an open, external view, can merely accept without question. The doctrine may take the form of the Great Eagle or reference to a taboo or accepted law (Geneva Convention, the Court of Human Rights, company ethical code of business behaviour), we define forms of morally acceptable behaviour and thus guide, authorise and verify our actions.
Absolutists would worry about "personal morally" merely being reliant on "externally defined rules" such as those founded on a divine belief and tradition or state law or other institutional system. If clear-cut, unequivocal principles may transcend church/temple or state law enabling every individual to evaluate any moral dilemma and make up their own minds using open, systematic reasoning. "Reasoning and will" may mediate "group pressure to conform". The individual as moral philosopher (you/me) may thus act from reasoning and choice and not religious belief, family tradition, following orders blindly or, being incited by others to riot or join a lynch mob.
Rationality and the "individual will over collective forces" debate are intertwined. The ethically minded individual (you/me) may seek to act independently from choice rather than follow the crowd. Nonetheless rationality is bounded by social influences which may reflect prevailing culture and values, family tradition, responding to authority, following orders blindly, being incited by others to riot or join a lynch mob etc.
One rule which seems to span most religions is the Reciprocity or Golden Rule.
A thoughtful, self-interested, egoist knows there is much to gain from fulfilling his/her obligations and winning the confidence of others. The employee will work hard for the employer believing that industry brings rewards. The caring employer reciprocates kindly to ensure loyal and faithful employees who have the best interests of the employer at heart.
The Golden rule however tends to emphasise what is visible. It need not hold back someone who wishes to harm others but secretly. Even open acts though not perceived to be so may be duplicitously harmful. A business person may be a mixture the unscrupuluous with other good and useful qualities. Ethical behaviour prescribes duties to everyone but the Golden rule may tend to favour the rich and powerful. We may be obliging to those who may do us injury by way of retaliation if we upset them but then we may be mean and distainful to those who are poor and weak.
Of course the Christian injunction "Love thy enemy" extends the golden rule.
Moral beliefs change over time. They differ between different countries and tribes, between different cultures in society or between social classes. We would abhor the practice of public executions as entertainment. There are different sets of moral beliefs held by gays about sex practices and religious devotees about abortion and the women's right to choice. Some would argue that it is a woman's right to choose. Others would argue that abortion involves taking a life. Relativists would argue that it is all subjective judgement.
But if you see a man or woman being beaten to death, would you intervene at the risk of being turned on also? We may seek help (the police or other protecting and interventionist agency). We may suffer mental torture because we feel cowardly - were not brave enough.
Who would honestly shrug their shoulders and say, "It is not my business, it is your affair. Who am I to lay down the law and say what's right for you?"
Absolutists would feel that subjective feelings about behaviour can never reach the status of facts. For them - it is a fact that some fundamental acts are wrongful and that basic moral beliefs are universal, and vitally applicable to everyone. They arise from strong human feelings about ourselves and others. They are socially constructed and social man cannot afford to be a moral nihilist.
