What are Ethics?

What is the scope and relevance of Ethics to ourselves
and the conduct of business?

A philosophical approach requires us to reach beyond what is personal intuitive or has the appearance of being common-sense. Often common-sense may be deceiving or not very common so - there is value, as "moral archeologists", in digging deeper. We might then better comprehend:

• the form of such thinking or reasoning and the "truth/plausibility" of concepts and frameworks of moral argument.
• the meanings and applications (general and specific to business) of various ethical terms and bases of argument.

Consider the following questions (not exhaustive).

• What kind of knowledge does ethics lay claim to? How is such knowledge defined?
• What is its relevance/application to business conduct?
• How is it (morality) acquired? What are the origins of ethics as systems of belief?
• Should I/you be good all the time? Must the answer always be "Yes" or are there degrees of correct or wrongful action?
• Is morality necessarily related to religion?
• Is questionable morality necessarily criminal or needing a framework of control and sanction? What form does a framework of sanction take - say - for the business person operating in a global marketplace?
• Are some acts committed by people always wrong (murder, child abuse, theft, corrupt practice, exploitation of others, damaging and irreversible destruction of the natural environment)?
• Is moral, ethical behaviour bound by absolute, universal, undeniable rules which everyone must accept and follow in life? What are such rules? How could they be so absolute? Alternatively is such behaviour based more on
  • avoidance of consequences (fear of personal harm/punishment) when making decisions or taking action?
  • socially and culturally determined and dynamic values (subject to evolution and change)?

• Do people have more of a propensity for goodness/evil, selfishness and greed (and are business people particularly vulnerable?) or does altruism, generosity and kindness prevail?
• How do children best learn to behave morally?
• What could be the content of a framework of ethical principles that business people in the modern (and postmodern) world might benefit from?
• in an extension to childhood do business people learn to behave morally? (Do children learn to behave morally?)
• Who has the right to tell you/me what goodness and evil are? Who has the right to tell business people what right and wrong conduct is in the context of their business dealings?

Ethical Concepts and Business Ethics

Those in business face some public disquiet and criticism about the ethical standards and behaviours that business people exhibit. This is generally true in political life and (Western) "society". The media, social commentators and politicians constantly revisit questions about what is "ethically or morally wayward, dubious or wrongful" and what we ought to expect from actors in the business and political worlds. In a sense, they have to have something to write and talk about. But is there really a crisis of confidence? Is business practice generally a major cause for concern?

The Business World - Vile or Virtuous

The economic processes and structures of business are varied and more complex, so to comprehend "the problem" we need conceptual frameworks to thoroughly debate what is unethical. Such concepts and frameworks are available from the realm of moral philosophy.

Activity

Where do ethical/moral beliefs originate?

• Taboos and Codes

  I remember as a child getting into great trouble and suffering immense embarrassment in taking a spoon from a neighbour's house ..... simply because "I liked it and it was very, very similar to one we had at home .... therefore it must be mine. "

  The embarrassment is still with me today and affects me every time I fill in a business expense claim form or fill in an insurance claim form or pay for the postage when I ask my company's post room to frank a personal letter for me because I do not have time to go to the post office.

  • Has unrestrained murder ever been acceptable in a community/society? Most communities have taboos and social codes governing such action indicating the grounds on which people may kill others e.g. in self-defence or war or ritual sacrifice.
  • We are rightly nervous about talk of euthansia and allowing doctors to aid terminally-ill patients who have decided to call it a day. The unease and the law illustrate the taboos, strong religious influences. Common sense and experience tells us that that the aged, sick and others are vulnerable to unscrupulous witchdoctors.

  Such unease and consequent legal/societal frameworks reflect "taboos" but a taboo in itself may not encompass principles universal to the treatment of others generally, liberty, murder, stealing, ownership, telling the truth or sticking to agreements? Some traditional taboos may exclude women or involve practices which harm weaker individuals.

• The Great Eagle

  Ethical positions may be bound by institutional rules and regulated by law or religious belief. In the latter case the source of rules may be attributed to the deity,

  "the Great Eagle - says it is fine to kill your enemy between sunrise and sunset but when he knocks on your door after dark, begs for food and desires a bed for the night" you must be polite and not proceed to kill him until the sun comes up again.

  P.S. At dawn you must then give him a 10 minute head start."

  Through the Great Mother or reference to a taboo or the law (the Geneva Convention, the Court of Human Rights), we define the scope of various forms of morally acceptable behaviour and thus legitimise our actions. These illustrate external, institutionalised systems of ethical values.

• Individual Will, Reason and Social (Collective) Determination

  We have our biological/genetic individuality and some would argue an ability to reason independently and autonomously of others. But it is difficult to avoid up-bringing, education and overall experience as shapers of what we are (the nature vs. nurture argument) and how we behave/think. People, owners, traders, managers, professionals, employees, suppliers, buyers, consumers, politicians, civil servants, benefactors and criminals, are all products of and contributors to a society.

  It is too simple to speak of one unified community. You may remember that Mrs Thatcher exclaimed - there is no such thing as society! We are members of many reference groups. Association or even dis-association with such groups may transcend cultural, religious, racial, sexual and socio-economic (class?) boundaries.

  • Artistole argued that the "state" functions to enable people (a collective) to share ideas and agree on a common code of what might be termed "acceptable behaviour". People are social creatures i.e. there is a natural characteristic to live in a state.
  • Socrates (circa 469-399 BC) differentiated between the law and morality. The state might legislate on right and wrong behaviour but every citizen should be vigilant in keeping under review what is accepted as moral opinion.

  But is the moral side to my nature just based on

  1. sticking to "externally defined rules" some or all of which stem froma divine tradition? If so, then "goodness" is learnt from up-bringing, community membership and fear of retribution - and is not inherent in the nature of "man".

     or

  2. am I innately moral, with a propensity for goodness rather than evil (born with in built capacity for sinfulness?

• The N Commandments

  Differences between religions highlight the implausibility of divine commandment. Even within a religion rules of an ethical nature can be contradictory. If a divine order requires someone to be murdered or a child to be sacrificed - must the follower who thinks independently and differently carry it out?

  This might be so but the reciprocity or golden rule seems to span most religions.

  Treat others as you would like them to treat you.

  Views about human nature

  - are typical starting point for ethical debate. "Man" is inherently good or bad - born an angel or a devil.
  • There is a likely X-Files-cum-science fiction cul-de-sac in thinking that future scientists might identify a criminal or psychopath from a blood test. This smacks of master race political rantings.
  • We might accept that someone may be born with extreme extrovert characteristics (seeks constant stimulus) and thus inclined to get into trouble as a child because of boisterous, high jinks behaviour.

  However it is also the case that family up-bringing, nurturing and conscious determination on the part of the individual may enable them to become a librarian! Oedipus-schmedipus - what does it matter so long as he loves his mother!.

• Individual will versus collective forces

  In moral philospohy the "individual will - collective forces" debate is important.

  The ethically minded individual (you/me) may act from choice and not social influence (the family tradition, following orders blindly, being incited by others to riot or join a lynch mob). In a war, soldier kills soldier becauses the factions are in conflict. If it was up to individuals if their own homes were not threatened and they did not personally identify with the cause, their natural tendency might be to pack up and go home. The individual who who chooses might be quite willing to die fighting or take the life of another if personal liberty is threatened and he/she regards atrocities committed by others as "evil". Equally such matters may be seen to be evil but the person is totally unwilling to take the life of another.

Business by example?

The argument to confront however is that individuals exercising free will make moral choices. Indeed without free will can the notion of morality exist? Whilst a killer whale attacking and even mauling a seal is not behaving unethically, we generally see due punishment for a serial killer or rapist as necessary.

We may differ about the type of punishment and argue over contributory and mitigating factors - tortured family up-bringing perhaps. If someone was to steal a sheep today or paint a rude slogan about a politician or the police chief or rival deity on the wall - we would regard it (Western liberal reaction) as unethical if such misdemeanour was punished by a lobotomy or amputation of the offending limb?

Yet a good resident of ancient Rome would choose to enjoy a good day out at the circus with captives on the lions' menu. Friends and family label our Roman as a "party-pooper" if he had stayed at home muttering " such barbarity....is unethical".

Today - Monty Python visiting a Spanish bull-fight or bull-baiting in a local town festival - might be disgusted. Few holiday-makers seeking the sun, sangria and the good life would be prepared to boycott Spanish holidays. Furthermore most Spanish people would not agree with the argument that the obsession with frightening, mutilating and killing bulls in a public spectacle - a centuries old local tradition which outsiders do not appreciate - is unethical.

Case Study

Recently I reversed my vehicle into a BMW parked behind me. No one saw or heard the crunch - it was a quiet street on a Sunday.

My vehicle (a minibus with a towing bar projecting from the back which did the (minor) damage - a small dent in the bonnet of the BMW and the front grill and a smashed number plate. The mini-bus was not even scratched.

What would you have done in this situation? Knowing what you know about me - what do you think I did?

Relativism or Absolutism? The Nature of the Beast

Its not my fault that I blew up the cosmetics factory killing 200 people. It is the fault of society that failed to stop my friends and family filling my head with hostility towards those who insist on carrying out experiments on animals! Anyway its is the rest of society that is wrong and we who are right!

Is it all relative or are there some basic moral rules (draw-the-line absolutes) which all people would subscribe to?

Moral beliefs change over time and differ between different countries, tribes, different political communities and social classes. We would abhor the practice of public executions as entertainment yet a day out at Tyburn in the 18th century was equivalent to todays visit to Disneyland, Paris or Thorpe Park. Even within a social group morally-related beliefs need not be homogeneous. Gays and religious devotees will differ about sex practices, abortion and the right of individual choice. Some would argue that it is a woman's right to choose whether or not to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Others would argue that abortion involves taking a life. - from the point of conception onwards Relativists would argue that it is all subjective judgement. Who am I to lay down the law for you?

Ethical absolutism.

For the absolutist, if a pot pourri of moral beliefs are all that we have and the goal-post can be moved at whim then who is right and who is wrong? How do we demonstrate/prove that A is right and B is wrong? How do we protect our own liberties and the benefits to be gained from an open society? A relativist would be very sceptical of a universal moral rule where there is no fixed moral knowledge but for an absolutist (universalist) certain basics are universal .... "although socially constructed - we are not moral nihilists". Some basic positions must be supported and applied by all people regardless of belief, creed, following etc. Such rules, a realist would say, are a form of truth (knowledge).

What kind of universals can be tabled?

• protect the young?
• don't cause sentient beings unnecessary, harmful pain ?
• don't murder innocent human beings ?
• outlaw slavery ?
• basic honesty in your deailings with others ?

The moral absolute problem is one of the exercise of power over others. One culture or group or individual can impose its moral values (an ideology) on another. History is populated with tyrants or self-righteous, crusading people who avow that "my moral truth is the correct one". Yet is the cultural and ethical interference of Eurocentric moral imperialism with its avowed "democratic" commitments obviously arrogant and wrong? The relativist view would be; stand back; leave people to live their own lives; do not interfere with other peoples' culture and social preferences.

Exercises

1. From your own position of values, would you "live and let live" or reject this and intervene to prevent what you see as harm being done in each of the following cases.
   • the practice of polygamy
   • cannibalism and making human sacrifices to please the Gods
   • ethnic cleansing
   • bribery to officials and business people to get things done
   • queue jumping where the rich can get to the front of the hospital queue first
   • selling arms to totalitarian regimes
   • killing tigers, farming mink and using small animals for the testing new medicinal products

   ---

2. Evaluate the moral values, absolute and relative, that are evident in Starfleet General Orders.

   What guidance would these fictional regulations offer a multinational corporation in drafting a "Corporate Policy for Ethical Behaviour of Staff"?

Politics and Competition

Thus an absolutist would argue that some moral beliefs and value positions are categorically true and whereas others are not. Our problem is in defining what is the categorical - the core values and securing their universal acceptance.

Absolutists claim that core values enable societies to exist and prosper yet the Nazis in Germany laid claim to clear, cohesive social rules - but few decried the way in which "democratic" allies interfered with Fascist values. Yet even after evidence of persecution and ethic cleansing in Kosovo, we still face political debate over whether or not it is right to interfere in " sovereign rights" and domestic affairs of a country. At best, where dilemmas of ethical judgement occur, we need to debate the issues and find practical and negotiated solutions to minimise the harms that we feel are being done.