Business Ethics Taxonomy, Research Paper Example

Kantian Ethics

Kant formulates his ethical theory on the basis of what he terms the categorical imperative, which seeks to identify how individuals should act without references to our own wishes. (Hooker, 2002, p. 1) Ethics for Kant must be grounded in a universal concept, which is applicable to all as a type of duty. For this reason, acting out of what we think is best is not necessarily ethically wrong. For Kant, the objectivity of human reason can therefore tell us which acts are ethical or unethical.

Theory in Action

The problem of outsourcing treated from the Kantian perspective would place the desires of the greater good or the individual good. Hence, whereas outsourcing may satisfy the company’s desire to increase profit, in so far as this outsourcing would cause irreparable damage to a local community, it is an immoral act.

Scholarly Critique

One of the most robust criticisms of Kantian ethics came from Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer argued that Kant’s equation with reason and ethics does not hold, in so far as rational arguments may be used to justify ethically contentious acts. (Tsanoff, 1910) In the modern business environment, whereas the appeal to rationality may coincide with business objectives, the imperative to act not according to one’s desires clearly poses for business, to the extent that it is dominated by self-interest. For the theory to function in business, the self-interest requirement would need to be adjusted, but this clearly problematizes the theory itself. The strengths of the theory include the intuitive aspect of not acting always in one’s own interests as ethical, but a weakness of the theory is the sense in which reason is necessarily ethical.

Communitarian Ethics

From the perspective of communitarian ethics, virtues are developed through relationships between groups. Against an individual account of ethics, for a defender of this position such as Alasdair MacIntyre, “it is only as members of communities that we develop virtues, the states of character needed to pursue a good life.” (Fives, 2005, p. 120) Hence, in one sense, fundamental to this account is the notion that virtues are something that presupposes our relationships to others. We cannot speak of ethics without these relationships.

Theory in Action

In the business world, much ink is spilled over the terms of “company culture” and “values.” The attempt to create such a culture is essentially a form of communitarian ethics, whereby the community as a whole works towards creating its values. However, does this communitarian element mean that the values arrived at themselves will be ethical?

Scholarly Critique

Since communities are responsible for generating virtues, it becomes clear that since communities differ, so to do these values. This would suggest a type of ethical relativism. This would be an attractive theory for the business world, in so far as a particular business may state that its values are created by the community, but this does not justify these values in as such. A strength of the theory, however, remains its “commitment to the preservation of community thus appreciates that moral formation is not a once-for-all moulding, but a continuing and dynamic process.” (Frame & Hartog, 2003, p. 359) The critiques of relativism are avoided by saying that communities are continually striving to live a moral life.

Ethical Egoism

Ethical egoism defends the position that what determines what one should do in a moral dilemma is determined by self-interest. (Debeljak & Krka?, 2008) Often tied to the work of Sidgwick, this claim reduces moral agents to subjective desires. (Debeljak & Krka?, 2008)  Accordingly, ethical egoism can be viewed as an ethical relativism, since self-interests obviously differ between human agents.

Theory in Action

For the business environment, ethical egoism is an attractive position, since it advocates self-interest. Hence, short-selling a currency, which could have devastating effects for entire countries, such as Soros’ manipulation of the Asian stock market in the 1990s, may be justified from this position.

Scholarly Critique

Ethical egoism opposes our intuitive definitions of ethics as something that must be done for others and, from this perspective, appears entirely unethical. If we only act in our own interest, then this appears to be an ethics of the self. But is an ethics of the self truly an ethics? (Debeljak & Krka?, 2008) Furthermore, this is problematized by the relativization of ethical positions, since each “ego” may have different ethical positions and commitments.

Discourse Ethics

In discourse ethics, ethical principles are formed through communication. Hence, the structure of arguing about ethics is the same as providing reasons for facts. The founder of the school, Habermas (1995), therefore believes that ethics is an ongoing conversation between partners premised on their shared discursive understanding.

Theory in Action

When a business is confronted by an ethical dilemma, those in positions of power within the firm may discuss the issue and try to each an understanding of what is right. Communication and the possibility of shared understanding are the preconditions for forming the correct ethical position.

Scholarly Critique

The basic fact that the debate of ethical principles occurs in discourse or through communication does not mean that our discourses will yield ethical principles. This position has the danger of falling into an ethical relativism. Furthermore, parties may entirely disagree on an issue and their discourses may be radically different, so that no ethical values can be shared. The theory takes into account that ethical dilemmas do not occur in a vacuum, but its attempts to resolve these dilemmas is too idealistic, since it is based on a common shared understanding, while a shared misunderstanding may be the norm.

Utilitarianism

Developed largely in the work of Mill and Bentham, “utilitarianism is the doctrine that the rightness of actions is to be judged by their consequences.” (Smart, 1956, p. 344) The utilitarian thus evaluates each and every action in terms of the yardstick of the “consequence.” The theory arguably is based on the notion that we can discern the consequences and that these consequences have an ethical value.

Theory in Practice

If a business makes a controversial ethical decision, such as laying off numerous workers, it can argue this move from the position of utilitarianism by justifying the consequences. Hence, even though this may cause immediate problems, the utilitarian will suggest that those who critique the policy fail to adequately understand the consequences if the layoffs do not occur, for example, the bankruptcy of the business, which will have a greater negative impact than the layoffs.

Scholarly Debate

Utilitarianism is problematic because it states that consequences can be evaluated. Perhaps, we fail to understand the consequences of our actions. (Smart, 1956, p. 344) The theory is strong in that it does grasp that our actions have effects which have ethical or moral meaning. However, identifying this causal relationship perhaps does not lend us insight into ethics itself. Furthermore, in the business environment, analysis of consequences can be manipulated: who fully understands the consequences of their actions?

References

Debeljak, J. & Krka?, K. (2008) ““Me, myself & I”: practical egoism, selfishness, self-interest and business ethics”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol.  1/2, 217 – 227.

Frame, P. & Hartog, M. (2003). “From rhetoric to reality: Into the swamp of ethical practice – Implementing work-life balance.” Business Ethics: A European Review. Vol. 12, No. pp. 356-368.

Habermas, J. (1995). “Reconciliation through the public use of reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s political liberalism.” The Journal of Philosophy, 1995. Vol. 92, No. 3. pp. 109-131.

Hooker, B. (2002). “Kant’s Normative Ethics.” Richmond Journal of Philosophy, 1. pp. 1-7.

Smart, J.J.C. (1956). “Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism.” The Philosophical Quarterly. Vol. 6, No. 25. pp. 344-354.

Tsanoff, R.A. (1910). “Schopenhauer’s Criticism of Kant’s Theory of Ethics.” The Philosophical Review. Vol. 19, No. 5. pp. 512-534.