e{Kco\ fwo,rq- ohc)' $u rhuasurqrr\\ '{.lutro,n

ErHrcnr THrony

CrAi EF at,E d [q Gu 3 fSouuJrc^*p "r.r-l/ \ \

v l lU\U [$ICrf\ (. ]5OtrtLC_

G,r.r"n ?^r.*.cu ?,r.,!J,

AND

|Rtr =qnlLt]I JItg:

.1l i LIRGI BLst\!ss organizadons bejust? Should dre chiefobligation ofbusinessbe ro look ouL for the bottom l ine: How far'strould business go to protect and

presene the environmenti Is it wrong to share copr'righted ntusrc over the Ioter-net? These are some of the niari\ questions that perrDeate discussions of thc role ofethics in business.

Tlte essavs and cases in this book provide an opponunin ro discuss these ques-tions bv reading and rellecting on ir-rlluential argunrents that havc been macle onthese subjects. The goal of rhis firsr cliapter is ro proride a foundetiol in ethical the-ory sui-ficienr tbr readiog and criticallv evaluating the mater-i:rlin the ensuing chap-ters. The first part of this chapter introduces basic and recurring dtsrrnrrions.definitions. atrd issues. The second part examines influential irnd reler'ant $pes ofnormative ethical theonl The ihird part cliscusses the case method":rs rn exercisein noral rellection.

FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS AND PROBTEMS

Moralitv and Ethical Theory

A distinctio[ befiveen moralitv and ethical theoin'appeaN in several essals in thisvolume. r l fo," iz1rh is concerned with s, " ir l prrcri .e' d"t ining right and rvrong. Thesepracrices-togerher rvith other kinds of custon]s, ruies, and mores-are transmittedh'ithin cult[res alrd institurions from generation Lo genenlion. Similar to politicalconstitutions and natural languages, moraliw exisrs prior to the acceptance (or re-jection) of its standards bv parricular individuals. In rhis respect moralita cannot bepurelv a per59n3l policy or code and is certainh not confined ro the ruies in proles-sional codes of conduct adopted b_v corporations and professional assocratrons.

In contrast to moralit'-, the terms rtriaal trcorN a:rld moral phtktopl,- point r., r,:-flection on the nature andjusdfication of righr actions. These words refer to at-tempts to introduce clarit\'. substanae. and precision ol argument into the don-rain

Busrrurss Pnncrrcr

H

Irhi.r l Theon, and Rusiness Pracri.c

of rnolal in. AlthoLrsh niarrr people go through l i fc r l irh an understantl ing of rnor-al_io cl ictared b\ their crr l lure. other pers()n,i are nor sad!f ied to co lbrm to ute morat_it l of societ\. Thev lant cl i l l icult cluestiots ansterecl: Is 1\l lat our socierr lorl t i t lsnrongi Are social|alues the besr|alLlesi \ \ :h:rt is the purpose ol mor:r l i t , , i Docs rel i-gion havc anrthing to do nith moralin? Dit the moral mlcs (rf socien f i t rogethcr. ina unil ied whole: l l thcre arc corrl l i , r , .rn. l i l tonrirrcnrics in ,, lLr l) t-r, r iccs arcl b.,l ieI i , ]row should thev bt- resolrecl i \{hat shorLlcl pcople do rrhen t 'acing a rnoralproblcm for which socien has, as vet, providcd lo insu-uctioni

\ loral phi losopher-s seek ro ansrver such qucsrions and Lo pur mor.al bel iefsancl social practices oI mor-a]in irrto a unif ied ancl defensiblc shape. Somerirnes rhistask invoives challerrging t l :rdit ional ruora] helieirs bl arsessil lg rhe qualin.of moralargumcn$ and sugsesting t-Irodificarions in existing ltelie1s. \br.aLitr.. rve rright sar,,colrsislJ of rrhat persons ought to do in order to conforD to socieNrs norrns of be_havior. r,hereas ethical theon con( erns rhe philn,., ,phir.r l I -.rs,,ns fnt ancl againstaspects of the mofaiit\: sripulared bl srlciery L,suallv the laner elTort ccnlers onjustl:ifttiatr Philosophers seek ro justifi :1 srstenr of srand:rrds or sone morar pornrol \-ierr c)n the basis of carclullv analvzecl and defeDcled concepts :lnd pr.inciplessuch as respect lbr autonontl, distr ibutive jusdce. eqDai treetlrenL. huntarr r ights.bcnelicence, a d uuth{ulness.

\Iost moral principles are alreadv embeclderi in public moralir\ . , bur usualh.ina lague and underanalvzed 1brm. Jtstice is a goocl example. Recurrenr topics in thepages of the \lttll ,\heet lournaL. Fortune, Busine.ts lllalr, ancj orher leaciing businessJournals ofren discuss t irejusrice of rhe present svst€m oi.ofporaLe and individualtaxation as ft'ell as the salaries paid ro chief executivc oflicers. Hortever., al1 ertend_ed ol detai led anah.sis of pr- inciples of. justice is r irtualh.ner.r:r pro\idcci in rhernedia. Such mauers ar.e leli at an intuitive levei. \,hcre the correctDcss of a nofalpoinL ol lieu, is assumed, r!ithout argumetrt.ltion. \it the fuilure to pror,ic.le anvthirrgmore than a superl icial j usti t icarioD. in tenns ol inruit ive principles lcarnecl fronrparenrs or peers, leaves people unable to defeDd their pr. inc\t les tvhcn challc[gecl.In a socien \\, i th rrranv diverse rierrs of nror-al irr. one can be laidr sure fhat one,s1 , t , - , i 1 , l - . r ' . l l he , J r . l l enc . ' l .

Morality and Prudence

Ilanv students do not encounrer- morai phi losophv as a topic r_rf srudr unti l col legeor graduate school. Nloralin,, horreveq is learnecl bv virtuallv cterv voung child aspart of the :tccultnrarion process. Tl ie f irsr srep in tbis process is learning ro dist in_guish noral ruies l iom rules ot prudence (sclf_intcrest) . This rask can be diff icult,becarise the nlo kinds of rules are uugh. simuluneouslv, wirhout being dist in-guished b-v the childreo's teachers. For example, peopie are constantlv rentindeclin their early vears to obscrle rules such as. ..Do[.t touch the hot stove.,, . ,Don,tcross the stree! $ithout loo\ing both rvars,, . .Brush Lour teelh after meals... ancl"Eat rour vegetables. ' Nlost of these ..oughts, '

and ,,ought nors'. are instnrctrons insell : interest-that is, mles of prudence. blrt moral mles :rre raughl et the same

ErhL(::r l lhc.rn ai ld Busmess Pr&ticc

tinc. PerenLs. terchcrs. an.l pccrs rcach lhet celLajl l rhings ,r,qrl , .r l to be . lone be-

cxlrse thc\ ' :rre ' \ \ ' fong' ( lnorl l l \ ) i lnci lhat ccrtaiD t lr iugs o,/gf i l t() be done l]ecause

Lhc\, dre "f ieht- trnoral lr ' l : "Don t pul l rour sisLer's hnir. 'LJon t takt: mi)l lev f iol l l

\olu m()ther's l locketbook- 'Sherc rorrr r(xs. ' \ \ j i l t a th:tnk-\ 'olt not.- to (;rand-

[ l ir . T]rese nrofal instf lrcLions seek lo corlt l-ol irct iorls lhir l al lcct the Inler 'c\ ls ot

oLhcr pe(rpie. . \s peoplt ' rr l l r lufe. thev lcern \,hat sociel l c)<pecrs of lherrl ir l Icr nl l

of raking irrro accounL the iI teresLs of othcr pcop]e.One of the [ lost corn[Iorl obserrl t iorts in busiuess is that se]i : inleresl alr( i

goocl ethics gcncral l-r coincidc, bccaust' i t is Lrsl l :r l l \ in onc-s irrteresL t,r act m,rtai lr.

This lact rn:1kes eralulLing anodrer's conchlct dif t icult aicl mav r.ncl t() c()rtf t lse

rnoral reasonirrg rvit l-r pluclential rearo ing. r\ simplc exarr4tle of lnolal Jnd Pru-clential reesoning run Logether in business is foirnd in the decisior 'r o[ the \Irr l iott

Corporatiorr to rnake a concerted effort ro hire persorts *l to had bcen on rtel i 'are.

Thcsc indivir: luals had olten been consir lered high-nsk as cnplolees. but cheugesin the U.S. lrelfale svstem in the ]ate 1990s forced man\ \lelfare recipicnts io scck

r\ 'ork- \Iarr i()t t Nas one ofrhe fe\, major companies to tal<c the init iat i le to hircthem in largc numbcrs. Such lrehavior might be considered an eriampie of moralgoodwill ancl cthical altmism. -\lLhough corpo.ete officials at \Iarriott cjearlr bcl ieved that their decision was ethicalh !ouud and promoted the public good. Lhelalso believecl drat their initiatile to hire lirrmer welfare rccipients \rr1s good bLlsi-rtess. J. \ \ : . \{arr iott Jr said, "\\ :e'r 'e gert i lrg l lood emplo\ees for rhe long term, butrre're also hclpine thesc conmunit ies. I f r lc don t step up in t iresc inner cir ies andprol icle l ork, tLev' l i nerer pull out ol ' i r . Bur i t makes bottom l ine sense. l f ir dir ln t.wc rroulcln t do i t ."r

The nirture ofmoral language lr, i th the laneuaqe ofprudence is often harmless. Nlanv pcoplc are lrlore concerrlecl aborrr rhe dalirrt businesses take than *,irl-rLheir notii,ati)ns to perlorm rhosc actions. Thc-se people rlill be inclilfclent as to'rr.hether businesses use the language ofprudetrce or the ]anglr ige ol morali t ! tojus-ri lv Khat the\ do, as long as thev do thc r ight thing. This dist inction between mo-ri\e! and actions is ren impoftant to philosophers. ho$eleq because a brLsinesspractice rhat rnight be pr'udentielh justi f ied mar' lack moral merit and mar e'en bemorallv wrong. HistoN has shoqn how some actions rhat were long accepted or atleast condoned in thc business collurlLr i t \ ' \{eae er,entualh condernnecl as mor'al l idubious. Eramples inclucle pollurion ol the air and rvaLer. pl:rnt rclocation purelvfor economic eain. and iarge poli t ical contriburions and bbb\' ing direcred at peo-pL,- of pol i t icel inl lrrcnce.

Businesspeople of ' ten rcf lect on rhe mo.al i t \ , of their actions nor becausc it isprudent to do so blrt because it is r ight to do so. For example, E1o Touchsvsleurs,Inc.. a subsidiarv of Ravchen Corporarion thar rnalulhctures comprlter and othermonitors. decided ro relocale Lhe cornpanv frorn Oak Ridge, Tenuessee, toFrcemont. Cali fornia. , \s a marter of f idel i t l ro i ts 300 enplovees, Lhe companv at-'rempled to f ind ne$,. jobs for thelr rD the Oak Rirlge area bv placing adlcrt incment:.sponsoringjob fairs, and the i ike. I t also olfe.ed generous bonuses f.tr fhose $'ho'n'oulcl relocate to Clalifo|nia. In light of rhe pool ol taler1L known to the companv to

-

Erhicat Theon an.1 Bu\ine\s Practice

be availablc in Calilbr-nie. rrone of this aclivit\, in Tennessec -seerned i the comPa-n\"s prud€ntial inter-cst. Ir simplv seemed the mo.alh aPProPriate polic\.

It is wideh, beliered that acring rnoralh' is in the interest ol business, and lhu\pruderrce seeils Lo be one sllong Irroli!e-pcrhrps the lIrain motire-for :rctingethicalh. Hore\.er'. throughoLrt this Le-rL rrc lr,ill repeatedlv sce that Prudence Lrliendictares a clifferenr business decision Lhln does moralin.

Moralitv and Larv

Business edric! in dre L:nited stares is cLrrrenth inv(tled in an entangled. complex,and nutuallv stimulating relarionship rvirh lar', as is illusdated in the legal casesreprinted near the end of rhe follorring chaptels. Nloralirv and larv share concernsovcr nalters of basic social importance and often have in common ceftain prinLi-ples, obligations. and criteria ol evidence. Lair. is the public's agencv for transiatingmoralitv into explicit social guiclelines and practices and ibr stipulating punish-mcn$ for offcnscs. Chaprel selections mcnlion boLh.ase 1a$, (iudge-made lat'ex-

irressed in courl decisiolrs) aDd statlrtorr la\r (fecleral and state statutes and theiraccornpanving administnltive regul:itions). In these firrms law has forced vital issuesbclirre the public and is frcqucntlv rhe source of ernerging issues in business ethics.Case lar'. in particular, has esrablished influentjal precedents rhat pro!'ide materiaifbr retlection on both legal and moral qucstions.

Sorne have said dlat.orporarc concern about business ethics can be reducedor eiiminated bl turning problems over ro the legal cle partmert. The operative ideais. 'Let rhe la\wers decide; if i t 's legal. it 's moral." Although rhis tactic rvould simpli-li matter-s, moral evaluation needs ro be distinguished from legai evaluation. De-spite an intersection bet\leen morals aDrl 1a$'. the lar, is not the sole repositon' of asocietl 's moral stanclards and values, even when the law is directh' concerned hithmoral problems. A lar.abidilg person is not necessarih morallv sensiti\c ur \ irtLr-ous, and the iact thar somethirrg is legall-v acceptable does not imply that it is moral-lv acceptable. for exarnple. the doct ne of emplovmenr :1t will permits emploversto fire emplovees for urljust r-easons and is (wirhin certain lirrits) legal, vet such ftr-ings are often norallr'unacceprable. X{anv questions are nised in chapters belorvabout rhe mor_aUn'of business actions. such as plant relocation and mergels thatcause unemPloiment, eren thoush such actions are not i l legal.

A tlpical e)rample is the foilorring; h rvas perl-ectlv legai rvhen Houston fi-nancier Charles E. Hurruitz doubled the rare of tree cutting in the nation's largestprivatell ou,ned virgin r-eclivood forcst. Hc did so to reduce the debt he incurredlvhen his companr'. the Nlasam Group. borroved monev to complere a hostiletakeover of Pacific Lurnber Companr', which olvned the red$oods. Before thetakeover, Pacific Lumber had follorled a consenatire cuttiDe policv but nonethelesshacl consistelLir operated ar a plofit. Despite the legalit! ofthe ne$ cleer-cutringpolicv initiated bv the new o\rner, it has been cliticized as immoral.:

-\ related problem inr,olves the belief that a person lbund guilt! under lau istherefore morallv guiltv. Such judgments are not necessarih correct, as they

Lthical Theon and Busirrcss Pra.tr .e

cl,:pend on ci i lrer the intcntion ol thc agents or the rnoral acceptabiJin'of dle 1:r\\ '

oi rr{r i th rhe juclgment har been retchecl. For eranlPle. i l a chemical t , ,nlPrl lr is

legall l l iable f irr pr-, l lut ing tht- enrironrrr-nt or a pharmaceuticel l im is l iable fol a

drug thaL has har_nrerl certain paLieDLs, ir does not lolk)\r dtal anl f i)rrr l ol nloral

r lrongcloirrg. cLrlpabil i6' . r)r gui l t is associated rvith the acti l in.-\sbe!tos l ir igation is:t wellkrtorvn cxarnple. Becalrsc ol the sttcngth. dLuabil i-

n , anaL l i re - fes l s tance o1 : r sbes tos . i L r l : r sused in t l i ousandso fco l l l 1mer .au t ' ' , t l i \ r : .sci l ]nf i l lc. indLrstl ial. and narit ime procr-sses:rnd prodtLcLs. \ i i r tualh no serioLrs so-

cial eLtentiou n'as paicl to asbestos i t i the United States urt i l 196'1. r lhen a srrong

link wrs esrablishccl benr'een asbcstos clust and disease. -\ manl as 27 mil l ion rr 'ork-

ers in thc Linited States nrav have been exposed to this liber, ancl 100 rnillion Peo-p1e nl ir, ! hale been expc.rsed to asbesLos in buildings. \Ianut' lclurers did not knot'

about these problens of r l isetse un t i l around l9{j4r r lodetl lcless, beginning rt i th th e

1982 bankruptc! of the Johns-\,1anr, i l le Coiporatiorr, manv corporations hare beerr

successlulh sued. Thr: problern continucs to cscalate t(xla\ lor comparl les sltct l as(,eolgi l-Pacif ic ancl Hall ibunon. From 2{)00 t l lr{)ugh spfing 2002 there lrcrc 2:

asbestos-related barrknrptcies (compared to 18 lor e]] of the 199(ls). -\ l thotLgh a!-

bestos manrrlactuters and thcir customers originallv hacl good intentions ancl good

prodLLcrs, Lhcl plr icl : l steep price under the 1aK.1Furthermore. the courts har,e often been accusecl. rr i th sone justi l icariou, of

causing rnoral ineqrt i t ies through court judgments rendered al iainst corporuLi,rns.Hele are some examples:1 (1i \ Ionsauto Chemical r las slrccessft l lv sued for $200rni l l ion. although the presidi lg. judee asserted thaL there $,as no credible evidencelinking Nlonsanto's -\gent Orangc to the se!ere harms that had been described irr

thc casc. (2) Cher,ron Oil rvas successful lv sued for mislabeling iLs cans of p:rruquet.altholrgh rhe otTelding label conlbrnreci exacth to federrl reeulations. Nhich peruitted no other lorur of labei to bc used. (3) Although r,hooping coueh \tccrne rn-

disputablv r-educes the risk of this t l isease lbr chi ldren 1tho receive Lhe raccine,

alnost no rr lnulacnrrer_ l l i l l producc it for ' feal of costl l suits br'ooght under prod-rrct l iabi l io lats.

In each instance it is casv to LiDdersta d rvhl cri t ics have cr-rnsidered various

regularions. legisiaLion. and caselaw decisions to be rnorallr' unjustified. Taken tcr

gerher. thesc considerations leacl to the fblkrl . ing conclrrsion: If something is legal.

i t is not rrecessari ly moral; i I sonerhing is i l legal, i t is Dot necessari lv inmoral. To

discharge onc's legal lespoiisibi l i t ies is not necessarih to discharge one s nloralrcsponsibi l ir ies.

The Rule of Conscience

The slogan "Let lour conscience be voul guide' has iong been, for manr, whaLrnorel i tv is al l about. \ 'et, despite dreir admiration for persons of conscrence.philosophers ha\e npical lvjLrdged appeals to conscience as alone iDsuff icient:Lnduntaustrrorlhv for ethical.judgment. Clonsciences |an Iadicallil iiolll Per_son to per-

son and t jme to Li re; moreover, rher, are ofien alter_ed bv ci lcumsLln(e. rel iqious

-

Ethical Theor\ irn.i Busiress pra.rice

bclief chi ldhood, ald u aining. Onc exarnple is {brrncl in Surnlev Kresgc, the son otdle foltncler ofS. S. Kresge Cionrpaur-1()1. l1()!!.n as the .,K \Iart.. fiorpor arion_who is a reetoL:i ler tbr rel igious rc:1sons. \\hert rhe compallv started sell ing becr andrr ' i le. Kresge solcl al l his stock. l l is consclence. he saicl. r,orr icl rroL let hinr make apr-o1it orr alcohc.rl. The cornpar.ir,: thoush. clisrnisscd his objecrion as ,,his orvn busi_ness : Indsa i . l t h :1 t i t sees l to rh iDg \ \ , t o l t s$ i t l l ea rn in l ] p ro f j t so11a icoho i . r_ \ secondcxample is fbund in manv indir icluals t l .ro beliele r lrai business has been conrluct_ed in rra\s rhat danage dre enrironment. These feelings are parricuiar]v strong iDtht-- Pacific Northrvesr trhere rhe lumber inclustn has allege.liv rhreatenecl enclan_gered species such as thc spotrecl ol l . The consciences oimembcrs ot |arth Firsthave been so aroused that thev hale engaged in acts of.ccoterrorism such :rs putt inglar-gc sFikes in trees that can injure loggeis rrho arc cutting Lhem. The merrber^s ofErrth First bel ieve that rhev are acting as required bv consclence. Bur rhedter theiracts are noral l ! acceptable is seriouslr. in doubt.

The rel iabi l in of conscience, Lhel. is n,,r srl i :cerrjhjng. \ lorr l Justi l icationmust be based on a source external to conscience.

Approaches to the Study of Moratity

\Lrmlirr and erhical theory c:rn be stuclietj and cleveloped br,:r va en.of merhods.but drree geneml approaches have clominared rhe l iterarure. Tno of thcse ap_prr>aches describc and aDahze moralin., presumabll,$ithout taking moral position.s.The other approach takes a moral positi,cn and appeals to morali i,or ethical theo_r\' to uDde l]\ 'r ire judgmenrs. These three approaJes are: (1) Descriptir.e, (?) Con_cep,nral, and (3) Prescriptive (normarive). These categories do nor express rrgidand ahr,avs clearlv distiuguishable approaches. Noneth-eless. when understood asnt:ol..po_h.: and contrastine positions. the\ can sene as moclels of inquin ancl asr r l r reh l r d i * r i r t , r i o l s .

Soci.rl scientists often refer tc, tlTe des(iptii,e appraath,\s the srientiJir sttttll ofeJhjus.,FJ, nlal dcstfpdo :rnd e\pianation of moral beharior ancl beliefs, as per_I'runed b\ eD thropolotis ts. :,rciUlogisrs, and hisrorians, ar.e qpical of this ap_ploech. \Ioral anitudes. codes. and belieii rhat are desc bed irr. lud. .,rrporar.policies on sexual harassment and codes of erhics i1l trade associations. Erirlplesof tlris approach can be found in Hamanl Bu.sint:.s,?zraa articles and ibrDas maga-zine polls that report wh21t business e\ecurives belie\:e is moralh. acceptable ancl unacceptabie.

Tlre second approach inrrrlr,es the conLeftlutl ,td_l of ethics. Here. the mcan_ings of cent.ai lerms in ethics lucir as ngrt rfiligation, jttstice, gttu(j. ntrtur, andr?sfotstbilitt are analvzed. Cmcial terms in business ethics such as hab ity av)d..rl)tion car' be given this same kind of careful cooceptual auenrion. The 1ir,.rp"ranallsis of dre term moralitj (as defined at the beginning of this chaptcr) aDd thedistinction beh!.een the moral ilnd the nonmoral ar.e npical exarnples ol these conceptual problems.

The third approach, pres(:nptilu (norm,atiae) slri..r, is a prescriptive studv at_tempting to formulate and defend basic moral norrrs. Nc,rnarive moral phJlosophr

f L l - r ' . l l h F ^ n d r d B u ' r " F * P r r ' r i . r

:1ims at deterrnining rvhar orgll to be clone, rr'hich necds to lle distingLrished fiorr

l 'hat is, ir i [act. precticed. Idcallr: an ethical theon provides reasons fbr acloptirrg a

whole svsten of moral principles or \irtues. (.'tilitdridnitm. and Kanlizrnlsnt irre rvidelv

discussed theor-ies. bct thev are not Lhe onh such t i-reories. Uri l i tarians argue that

there is but a single lundamental principle determining right action. rthich crn be

rooghlv statcd as lbl l- 'ns: 'An action is rnoralh r ight i f ancl onlv i f ir produces at

least as great a balance r-rf value over disr,alue as anv atailable allernative ,cfion.'

Xantians, br contrast. ha'e arBued fbr principles that specil i obl igati<tns rarher than

a balance oi va1ue. For erample, one of I(ant s best-knol 'n principles of obligation

is '\ever treat another person mcreh' as a mcarns ro your o\t'r1 goitls." even if doing

so creates a net balance of positi\e r,alue. Borh forms of these theories, togetherrr i th other dinensions of ethical theot. l ' , are exanrined in dre second paIt of this

chapter.Principles of normative ethics ar'e commonll used to treal specific moral

problerns such as famine. conflict of interesr, improper disclosrire of information,

en\' ironmental pol lut ion, mistreltment of anirnals, and racial and sexual discrimi-nation. This use of ethicai theorv is often referred Lo. sotnervhat misleadingly. as

alpl ietL ethis. Philosophical treaunent of medical ethics. engineerjng ethics, joru-

rralistic ethics, j rrrisprudcnce, add business ethics inrolves disdnct areas that emPlov

eeneral erhical principles to attempt to resolve moral problems Lhat conmonlvalise in the professions.

Substantiallv the same general ethical principles appiv to the problems acrossprofessional f ields and in arcas bevond professional ethjcs as irc1l. One might aP-peal ro principles ofjustice, for-cxanrple. to i l luni inate and resolve issues of taxa-rioo. health care distr ibution, environlnen|al responsibi l i tr , criminal punishment,and racial discrimination. Similarlq pdnciples ofvencin (truthlulness) applv to de-bates about secrecv erld deception in intcrnational polidcs, misleading advert ise-n1ents in business ethics, balanced report ing injournalist ic ethics, and disclosure ofi l lness to a patir-nt in medical ethics. Increased clari$ about rhe general condit ionsuncler n'hich tmlh must be told ancl r"'lien it mav be withheld l'oulcl presumablv cn-hance understanding of moral requirements in eech of these areas.

The exercise of soundjudgrnent in Lrusiness practice together rvith appeals toethical theor! are central in the essilvs and cascs in this volumc. Rarel,v is there astraishtfonvard "application" of principles thar frecha ical ly resolves problems.Prirrciples are ilore colnmonh speciJied, that is. made ntore concrete for the con-re\t, than applicd. N{uch of thc best ork in contemporary business ethics invohesargumenrs for ho!v to specif l principles to handle part icular problems.

Relativism and Objectivity of Belief

Sonre ivrirers hale contended that nioral liews simph express the rvals in lvhich aculture accommodatcs the desir'es of its pcople. Cultural relatirists note th:lt [ioralstandards lall fronl place to place. In the earlr'part of the tlventieth centur'\'. de-fenders of relativism used lhe discoveries of anthropologsts in the South SeaIslan':ls, ,\hica, and South Anerica as evidence of a diversiry of moral practices

H

FLhir:el Theorr, and Ru5iness Pra.r i .c

rhroughour rhe rorlcl. Their enpir ical discolcries about l ,hat is the cme lecl themro dre aonclLrsion thi l t r ighncss is corrt ineenL Lrn cr.r l tural bel iels and that the concepu of r ighr ess arld \!rongness are nleaningless apart f iom the specri l l ( : contextsirr uhidr thcr, al ise. The clainr i-s that patterDs of culture can onh be understood asuniqut- rvholcs ancl rhat mor_al beliel i about nornai behil \ ' ior r1r^e closeh conDrctedln a culture.

Ethical llelatiaism, These .J.r.)?tii.r claim: abour rrhar is rhe case in cuiturcshare oficn lrt-'en tlsed to jusrili a nornative positicttt knotrl as etliical relativism.Lthit.t.l nld.i1';.\tt ̂ s\ert-s thaf \{h;llever.l cultur-e thinks is right or 1rrong rcalh is rightor \\rong f i)r the rnernbers of rhat cultur_e. This thesis is norntati \e. becaLlse it makesa rallre judgmenl; it delineates itltih standutds ar Lorns carred[\ detertnine riglLt ontluang h?hdniar. TL s. i f the Srrcdish tradir ion al lols abort ion, rhen abort ion realh isiroralh permissible in Sneclen. If the Ir ish tradir ion forbicls rbo ion. therl ]bot t iunre:1l lv is 1l long in Ireland. If erhicel relal i \ isnr is correcr. then ther.e is no c renonindependent of one s cultlue fbr dererniinilg rvhether a pracrice re:rllr is right or1\'ronQ,

l.rhical relarivism prol ides e theorerici l i basis for those lho challenge.t irarther corrsicler ro be the irnposit ion of \ \estern values on the rest of the \\,ol ld.Specificallr', sone spokespersons in \ia have criticized lhat thev r-egard as the at-terrrprs ol rr'cstcrtrcrs to impose their values (es the normatir,el! correcl v:1lues) on\ian societies. Despite rhe inl luenct , r l r elat ir ism lntl m rr lrculrur:r l ism, the.e harebccn manl recenL attempLs b\ both gorernment agencies:lnd mult inational corpo-rations to promulgate intcrnaLional codes oI brtsirress coDduct that sunroLlr l t rela-ti\.isn (sce Chapter 9). \Ioreover, mor:rl pl]ilosophers hlve Lended r() rejectrelarivisrn and ir is important to unclersLancl l!'lt\:

First, moral philosopl-rers ask. nhat does the arguneDt fiotrr the f:rct of cultti,al di lersin reveal? \{hen earh anrhropologisfs probcd benearh surtace 'moral ' dis-agreemen$. the\ ofteD discor.ered agreement at deeper levcls on mofe basic \ 'a1ues.For example, one rnthropoloeist discov('red a tribe in lr,hich piueDts, alier raisiDgtheir chi ldren and \\,hen sdll in a relariveh heallhr state. $,ould cl imb a high t l ee.Their chi lc. lren lould then shale rhe tree unfi l rhe parents fel l to rhe ground anddied. This cuhrrral practicc seems vasrh different from \\iestern practices_ The an-thfopologist discovered, ho\relet rhat the rribe belieled that people \{eIr inro rhe.ifterlil'e in the same bodilv srate in hich the\ leli dris life. Their children. rvhowanred them to enter the aI ' terl i fc in I hcrlrhr sttt-, reLc nn Lcss cun, erled abouttheir parents than are children in \Vesrern cultures. _\lthough cuhuraL di:agrpe-nent exisrs concerning rhe afterl i le (a disagreemcnr about lrhat is or is Dot thecase), thcrc is no ultimate noral clisagreement o\:er- the moral principles determin-ing how chiidren shoold |Ieat their parents.

Despite their obr,ious differences of practice and beliei'. people olien actuallvasrec about ult imate moral standards. For cxample, both Germanv and thr L-nircdStaLes ha|e la$s to protcct consruners from the adverse aflicrs of nc\{ dr:ugs and tobring drugs to thc nlarket as quicklv as possible so that lir,es are saved. \'et Germanvancl the Unitcd Srates have dillerenr standards for n:rking the tradeoff bet$,.eeDproaecling fron side effec$ ani:l sa\inq lives as soon as possible. This suggests that

Ethical Theon and Bt6iness Pract ice

n\'o culhrr-cs mav aEiree about basic principles of moralinr ver disagree about how toin-tplement rhose pr-inciples in part icular situations.

In manr"'moral controversies" people mav dif ler onh because ther have cl i f-ferent facnul beiief!. For-instan.e. individuals ofien di l ler over appr-opri.rrc etr ionsto protect lhe envir-onmcnt. not bec:ruse thev have di l le] 'ent sets ofstandards abontenvironmental ethics bui because ther hold dill'erent factual \ic\rs ahout hor! ce[-uin discharges of chemicals and airbor_ne part icles wil l or wil l not harm the envi-ronmeDl. Iclentical sels of normati\e standards might be invokecl in theirarguments about environrnental protection, ver different policies and actions mightbe recomnended.

It is therefore essendal to distingrish relatfutsm af Judcme x ftoil relati.)ivrt, ofsldnddrds. Different judgments mav relv upon the same genenl standards for theirjustification. Relatir"ism ofjudgment is so penasive in human social life that ir 1!.ouldbe lbolish to denv it. People rnav differ in the ir j ucigrle nts regarcling u,l-rerher onepolicv for keeping hospital inforuration conficlential is more acceprable than an-orher. but it does not folio$ that thev have different moral standards ofconfidential-in: The people mav hold tlie sanre moral standard(s) on protecting confidentialitvbut differ over horv to implement the standald(s).

Horvcver. these obsenatiorN do not decide r,'hether a relatirism of srandardspro\ides the most adequate account of moralitr,. lf moral conflict did tlun out to bea marter ofa lundamental conflict of moral rtaridards. such conflict could not be removed even if there rvere perltct agreenent about the facs, conceps, and back-ground belieli of a case. Suppose, then, thar disagreement does in fact exist at thedeepest level ofmoral thinking-that is, suppose rhat nro cultures disagree on basicor fundarnental norms. It does not foliow even from this relutil,it\ af stunaLarL]s tbat.there is no ultinate norm or set of norms in rvhich everyone o1lgrl ro be]iele. To seerr'hr', consider the folloring :rnalog" to leligious clisagreement: From rhe fact rhirtpeople hare incompatible rel igious or atheist ic beliefs. i t does not lbl low that thereis no single correct set of rel igious or atheist ic proposit ions. Nothing more thanskepticism seens jusrified b,v the facts about r-eligion that are adduced b-\' anthlo-pologr: Similarh. nothing more Than such skepticism abour rhe moral standardswotrld be justified if fundamenrai conflicts of moral standartls vere discover-ed inethics.

An Argumbnt against Ethical Rclatizriyn. The ericlent inconsisrencv of ethicalrelatilism nith uranv of our most cherished moral belieli is a reason ro be doubtfulol it. \o general theor-y ofethical relatilism is likeh to conlince ris rhat a beiief is ac-ceptable mereiv because others belier,'e in it stronglv enough, although that is ex-actlv the commitment of this theoni Ar least some moral r.ier!'s seen relativeh' moreenlightencd. no maner hon'sreat rhe r.ariabi l i t l ofbeliefs. The idea rhat pracd.essuch as slaverv-' cannot be evaluated across cultures by some common standardseems ntorallv unacceptable. not moralh enlightened. It is one thinli to suggest thatsuch beliefs might be r:c.2l.ted. sriil anothe. to suggest that the! are Dgrl.

\{hen t\\'o parties argue about some serious, divisile, alrd contested moralissue-fbr example. conflicts of interest in business-people tend ro rhink thatsomc fai| and justified compromise mav be reached. People seldom iifer from the

--

10 Fthi r iL l Theon and BLLSinesS PfacI i .e

mcre irct ot a cont-l ict benlceu belieis that therc is 1lo 1\ 'a! to judgc one \ ie\\ Js t ' ' r-

rect or as bctleL argue{l ()r m()re reasonable than 'he other' ' fhc more absurci thc

posiLion acl. 'anced l i . oIre parn. the rnorc conrinced others bccomc lhitt \Ln]lc \ ie\s

are rnisraken. rnreasonablc or reqtLire supPlem'ntaLion

Moral Disagreenents

Even il erhical relati\isn rs unircccptable rne still musL conll-ont the indisputable

fact of mor_al disagr'eenlenr- In anv pluralisiic cLrlture manr conflicts of value etlst

In this lolume serjcral controletsies and clilenmas are examined, such as t'ithholci-

ing pelt inent inforrnation in business cleals, nhist leblot{ ing in jndustn' advert ising

i,ri.,r,t",t to manipulatc people's feelings. Practicing Preferelti:rl. hiring policies'

ancl thc like. -\lthottgh some disagreements seem overrr'hclni o_' lere lr-e \tats to

resolve Lhen or at le.1st lo reduce the level ofdisagrecnent Se\eral merhods have

been empbved in tile pasr ro cleal const ctivelv 1\'ilh moral disagreemenls' etch of

r,hich descrves rec<)gnit ion as a methocl of easing disagreenent and coll f l ict '

Obtaining Obiectiae Information. NlanY no'al clisagrcements can he at ieast

pa ialh rrsol ied bv obtainiDg acldit ional factr 'ral infbrmrl iolr on whi 'h moral

con t ro r ' e rs i cs tu rn . ta t ] i e r i r r r , ' assho r lnho rvuse fu l such i l f o lma t ioncanbe in t f . ! .ing to ascertain nhether cultural variat ions in belief are fundamcntal Unfi lr tu-

nateh. i t has often been assttmetf lhat noral dispr'rtes are bv delinit ion produced

solelv bv differences ovet motal principles or thelr applicationind not bv a l : lck

of sci,- 'nt i f ic or f ictual information This assumption is misleading, inasmuch as

moral cl isputes-thal is, disputes or'er rvhat moralh oughl or ol ighr not Lo be

done-oftcn have norlmoral elernenls as lheir nain ingreci ients For examPle' cle-

bares over rhe al location of tax { lol lars to Prelent accidcnts or disease in the work-

place often become boggetl dolln in lactual issucs of \!'hcther Particular me:rsures

such as the use of prorecti , 'e masks or lor. ' 'er levels of toric chem icals actuallv func-

rioD best to prevent death and disease

Yet another example is provided bv the disPute bet\"een Greenpeace and

Roval L)urch She1l. Al ' tei considerable inrestigi lLion, Ro\al Dutch Shell proposecl

to sink a loading and srorage buov for oi l in the North Sea (offEnglandI Despite

some evidence that such an operatioD posed no environmental danger' Green-

peace cond.ucted Protests and even Lrsed a group of small boats to thu'-:rrt thc tt-

rempt. Roual Dutcir Shell vieided to i ts cri t ics, and lhe buol was cut uP and made

intc, a quav in Norrvar'. Later, hot'elet. even Clreenpeace calne to the conclusioll

th.t ,-r"it in.t. indicated thal there had ncver been anv serious environmental

dangcr.Controversial issnes such as the following are l:rceci lr'ith issues of both lalues

and fects: Hou satislactorilv toliic subslances are monitoted in the rvorkplace; horv a

start-Llp conrPan! has 'appropriated" an established companv's trade secrets: the ef-

fects ol access to pornogrephv through the Intemetl Nhether an exter1sion of cut_

rent copvright lur", ,uo.tli reduce sharing of copvrighted recordings on the

lnterneil .nd lhe maoufacture, disseminarion, and atlvertisement of vaccioes for

l - thical Theon and B Siness Praci icc

med ica l r t se 'Theargunren rsusec lb rc l i sag lee i r rgPa l t i esm]v tu rn (n ] l d rsPuLe

"ia,,, , tU".,. , harnt. or ' j ' ' rst ice ancl thcrefor'c nal be pl iniui lr ' rnoral: but Lher mav

also rest on factual clisagreements or'er-' fot erarnple' the eJfects of a,product ser-

;; . ; , ; ; ". ; ,"

Inforrnarion r, 'rv thus ha\c onlt ' l inited bearing on the resolutron

oi.. ,rrr. aor,-r.rr ies, r.eL i t rna' har.e a r l ircct anrl a;DosL o\erpo*ering i. f lnence

ln o tne$ .

Dsnit ional C'dti4' somelimes conlrovetsies halc been rett ied bv reachmg

couaepural or clel ini l loDal aqreeneDl ovcr-the langtl i t l le used.bt dispttt ing part ies'

( lontrorersies discrtssecl in ChaPter 6 over the n;ral i tv of al l irmarire r 'r ion i tnd

sctlr'.11 harasstlleDl. lbr examPle ar'e often neecllesslr cornplicared ber euse dilfer_

enL sense: of these expressions are emplovecl artd ler cl isputing plu t ies mal hale

m,r.ft in**.a in thei i part iculal definit ions' I f Lhere is no courmon point of con-

tention in such cases, Part ies $i l l be acldrcssing entirci\ separate issues t l trough

,i*i,:i...qr",d .r..,tttptio"t' otien these parties rvill not ha\:e a bona lide lnoral

cl isagreenlcnl.\lthough conceptual 'rgrecrnent Provicles no gua|autee that a dispure vill be

jert led. ir $i i i faci l i tat; difec; discussioir of the outsnnding issues For rhts rcason'

,u"".1.-.r,r. irr ir t i , .olurne dwell at some length orr Problems ol conceplLral cladn

Etanple-Countetexample Resolurion of moral conlr'rversics can also be aided

rr" pJttg'"t.tnpl., and opposcd counterex:rmPles' that is bv bringing lbrrvercl

cases or e{anrplcs that are la\oraDIe to one point of\ ' ie1\ 'and courlterexirmples that

ur" ir't ,rpp,r.iii,rr't. For instance, a ftrmous iase againsr Af&T involving a dtspute

over discriminatot_l 'hir ing and Promotion bent'eerr the companr' 'rncl the Eqtlal

i"rpf.r '-", t i Opp".tunit ies Co-mi'sion (EEOC) uas handlecl rhrough the cita

rion otl staLisrics and examples th:l | (al legedlv) documented the clalms lrade Dv

.".r,, ia". -\T&.f shorved ihat 55 per,:.nt ot r lLe rmpl'rccs on,ir. palrol l $'erc

,,("t, ,"t ""a

th:rt Si i percenr of al l marr:rgcment pt 'sir ion: lrrr- lrcld bl t 'omen' To

.tt.rp"tt irt al)egatiJn of discriminatorr'"practices in rhe ,facc-o:fthis

cvidence rllt-

LEOC, courrrerecl br clt lng a gon"t"t"(]t t t stuclv dcrDonstreting- that 99 percenr of

^lf i.f"prl,rtt. .rp.ao,.',, *"tt i"rlrale' r"'hereas onh l percent of craft n'orkel s \!'ure

fem:rle. Such use of example "rrd

lo.rrrt"a.t^nple serles ro rrei3h Lhe slrength of

confl ict ing considerations'

Analysis of Arguments and Positicns' Finallr" a serviceable mefiod of philosoPh

i.,rr inl.r i i t i , ihniof.xpo,it tg rhe irraclequacies in ind unexpectecl 'onsequences

ol argri'me,rs ancl positions A moral algument thar leads to-:,t-11::t:* that a pro-

nonent is not prepared to detencl and ;lid not Preliouslv anticipate will have to be

il;;:i, ;;;; il;'-Ji,i;'.'..;;";"""" rhose rvho iisagree will perhaps be reduced br

this process. lnc()nsrstencres nol oniv in re:rsoning but in orgarizational schemes or

DronouncemerlLs can be uncovered Holvever' il a context o{ controvers\" sharP at-

i"';.;;,il;;;;-t't"r;rttrt- ut e'entxate in an agteernent unless a t:limatr: of rea-

r,- pr"t" i f". i f i "aamental

axiom ofsuccessiul neeotiat ion is re-ason.l l ld Dc open

io rlJ^..rn." ttt. .t*i,rIn hoids tor moral discussion as rvell as aDl othel disagreement

No contention is made here that Inol.:ll disagreenents can alu'avs be resolved

or that evel1 reasonable person nlust accept tht same lnethod for approaching

l l

Ethicll Theor\ enci Btsiness Praclice

such Problems. Nlanv moral disagreemerlts lrlar not be I csohabic bv anr of thc four

meth()ds drat have been ciiscussed -\ single €thical theon or nethod nlat nevet be

developcrl to resohe ai l disagrecments adcquil leh. and the plural isln oI crr lnrral be-

liclis olien presenls a consiclerabie barrier to the rcsolution of issues Givcn the pos-

sibi l i tr ' of forrt inLtal disagrcenent. thc r-esolution of crosscultural conll icts such as

those faccd bv muhinadonal corporetions mav Pruve especial lr 'elusive Horveler' i l

something is to be clone lbotlt lhese problems, i resolutioD seelns nlore l ikeh'to

occur i f the methods orrt l ined in this section are l lscd

The Problem of Egoism

-\t t i tuclesinbusinesshaveoftenbeendeerrredlundamental lvegoist ic'Execltt ir 'esancl corporari()ns aae said to act purelv liom Prudence-that is, each business is out

to pao,rrot" soleh' i ts orrn interest. Some peopic sat that the corPolation has no

other intcrest, because its goal is to be as sllccessful in co Petition as Po\sjblc'The philosophical theon called /go;.tm has lamiliar origins Each person has

been colf i :onted,ior exanPle, r l i th occasions on rrhich a choice nust bc made be-

n'cen spending monet'on oneselfor on some \!orth! charitable enterprise \\rhen

.[ ie e1..ts to purchase ne\! clothes for onese]frather than contdbute to I r lnirrrsin

scholarship fLr-rd for poor students, self-interest is being given P oritv over thc in-

terests of orhers. Egoism generalizes bevond these occasions to al l hum:rn choices'

Tlrc egoist contend-s that ;11 choices either involve or- should invoh'e self-Pr omotion

as their sole objective. Thus, a petson's or a.orpomtion's goal and perhaps onlv

obligatior-r is self-promotion No sac fice or obligation is o\\:ed to olhers

Pslchological .Egoism. There are 6{rl main varieties of egoism: Psvcho}ogicalegoism and eihical egoism. Psvchologicai egoism is thc \ier' that el'en'one is al$'els

nioLivate,l to act in his or her perceived seli interest This f ' 'Lcttal theon'rcgarding

hunran notir':rrion ollets at explanutior of human conduct in conrrast to a

justil:it:.1tion ofhfinan conduct. It claims rhat people al\'!avs do wha! pleases Thenl or

rutrai is in their interest. Popular lvavs of expressing this viervpoint inchrrle the fol

lorting: "People are at hea; seHish. even if rhel appear ro be unselfish"; "People

look out firr \-umber One fi$t"; "In the long run, even'bod! does what he or she

r!'ants lo do"; and '-\-o matter whal a person savs. he or she acts fbr the sake of per-

sonal satisfaction."Psvchological egoism Presents a serious challenge to moral philosophr' If this

theorw is correit, there is no Purelv altruistic moral motivation' Yet nonnari\e ethics

(1\, i th rhe exception of ethical egoism) apPears to presupPose that people ought to

behar,e in accordance with certain moral principles. whether or not slrch behavior

pronotes their o!!n interests lf people matf da, in their own inLerest, to esk the m to

iacrifice for others would be absurd. Accordingl-\", if psichological cgoi\Rr is trLrr,

the u'hole enterpdse of normative ethics is futile

Those who accept psvchological egoism are convinced bv lheir obscrvation of

themselves and otheis f iat peoPle are entirelv selfcentered in their moriretion

Conlerseh', those $ho reject the theorv do so not onh because thev see manl'

Ilthicrl Thr'or,, irll.] BLrsinL'ss Pracrire 13

er.anrples of altr l l ist ic beha|ior in rhe l i les of fr icncls, seints. heloes. and pLrbl ic ser-

!:rnts. but also because contcmporal .r lr throl loloS, psvr:hologl. al lcl biologl ol l ir

-{o[ lc compe]l ir1g studies of sacri l icial beha|ior Eren if i t is conceded thar people

er'c basical lv self ish cr- i t ics ofcgoism maintain that there are etleestsorne outstantl

irrg exe[rplt--s of prt- 'cnrincullv unseil ish actiol ls sLlch as whcn cofporations .ut paof-

iLs in order to proricle public services (see Uhapter 2) and rr,hen enplovces "blol-

the rrhisLle' on unsafe or oLhenise improper blLsinesi pr 'acticcs cvcn though the\corrld lose Lheir jobs ancl sufler social ostracism (sec (,hapter -;).

1-hc delenrler of psrchological egoisn is rr-rr imprcssed bv the excmplalr l ivesol sainLs and heroes or br social pracficcs of corporare sacdfice. The psrcl iologrcalegoist mainLaius that:r1l lose persons who expend cl lbrt to hclp others, to pr_olr()te Iairness in cornpetit i()n. to plonole the general rrr: i lar-e. or to r- isk their l iveslbr the nel{are of others are, underneath i t al l , acting to promote themselles. Bvs:rcri f icing tbr their chi ldren. parents seck the satisfr lct ion thar comes f iom theirdrildren s der.eLrpnrerrt or achie\,ements. Bv follorrin3- socit-'njs moral and legalcodes, people avoid both the police and social ostracism.

Egoists nlaintain thrt no matter horv self-sacrif icing a person s bchavior malet Limes seelrr, Lhe desire behind the actioD is seif legarding. Onc is ult imateh ourl irr oncsell . rvhether- in the long or the short run, antl w-heLher one r 'eal izes i t ornot. Egoists r icu self-pro[roting actions as pcrfccrh. conrparible $' i th behavior rhatothefs catel iorize as altruist ic. For exanple, man\ corporatiol ls hare adoptecl 'en-

l ightelecl self- interesr" policies thlough rvhich thel are responsire to comrlrLulir\needs and pronote rvorker sarisfactioI ro promote thcir corporarc inage and ulr i-mateh theit earnings. The clever pcrs.rn ur LUrpurJi ion . ln .rpp(, lr Lo be Lrn-self ish, brrr the action s tnle character depends on the )nali i- tal i t l behind theappcarence. Apparentlv altruist ic asents mav simpll bel ieve that an unsclf ish ap-pearl lrce best promores theia long-range interests. Fr'orn the egoist 's point of r ie\\, ,tha lact that sonle (Pseudo?1 sacrif ices mav tre [ecessan in the short nrn does notc()Lrrrt agar st egorsm.

Cionsider a npicrl example. In mid-1985 I l i inois Bel1 argued befbre the I l l inois Commerce Conmission thar i ts conpctitors should be al l() ,ed lul l acccss tomarkets and that there should be no reguhrion to protcct I l l inois Bell f iorn i ts cum-pctitols. I l l inois Bell had long been protected bv sucli reguiation. under thich i thad gror.n to be a successful $2.7 bi ion compa[t. \Vhr', fhen, r,as ir non arguingthat a completeh fi-ee market would be rhe fnirest busiress arnngement? Ilrr.trt tagazine asked. "Is this l l truism' or is i t enl ightened self- intelest ' i" Iorlar editorsansrrered that. despite the appearance of altruism, whar Illinois Bell rvanted rr.as "ro

-qeL the state regularors off their b:Lcks' so tbat dre companv rvo[ld be able to com-petc nlore successfull-v rdth te\\'er constftlints and to avoid losing business to largecompanies thaL could ser up their o1\ 'n telephone s\,stems. Self- interest. not lairness,rv:rs. accordins to lolrd. the proper e\planation of l l l ioois Bell s behavior 6

Evcn if I l l inols Bell s behavior is best cxplained as n)otivalecl bv self, inrerest. i tr teecl not fol lo$ that al l human beha\ior cau be besr erplaiDed as motivated bl self:intcrest. The question remains: Is psvchological egoism correct:, \ t one lerel thisqaestion can bc ansrered onlv bv empirical data-bv looking at the facrs. Signil l-canfh', thele is a lalge bodv of evidence both fiom observaLiorrs of dailv plactice and

l,l Irhical Tbeol\' and Rusinesr ]'ractrce

from experiments in psvchological laboratories th:rt coLrnts agil inst the rrnive'sal i f i '

oi"g,ri.ii. -u.i.^tior,- Th" ..id."t" fion clailv pracrice is not limited t(r herorc ac-

tion but inclucles such mundarre Practices ls vo|ilIg and lea\,in3 tips t11 restaur.antS

J d ho re l . \ 1h . r c J f e l . on r l l ' c s no l - \ l e r I I ' I I e r r r ' l J r J h r ' n ' r h i r , u r r ' g ' r i n

\\hen confronted t ' i thsuch attt f l i tu"g enrPll ici l l di l i ' t thc di:prrte ol ien is

.. i . .a f. . ' r t ihe empirical lelel to thr ronttpiurl l t i \ t trnpung tor th: pt l t ] l ."tT]:

cal egoist to make rhe theo- arri:srarih true because of the difliculties in pro\1rtg tt

ro- ii *opirottl tme. \\'hen tonf"'nttd \\ith 1\'hat look like altruistic rcts (qirists

I[u" "rrp"ul

to ur-rconscior.rs motiles of self_inlerest or clatm that erel u_ act is based

;;:; ; : ; ; ;" ; i ,he person performing the act and that acting on that desire is

\\,hat is neant b1' .taly'?tleterl.The latter explanation seems to be a coDcePtual or lerbal lrick: The e'qoist has

changed rhe meaning of rlfinldlsl' At hrst srly'inlererl meant 'acling exclusilelr on

fr"i*if .f one's orn'n self-serving interesr"' Nov the tord has been redefined to

-""n ""a,ing or't or-ty interesr oni has " \at the centl.al questions temain rtnresohed:

Are there <lifferent kinds of human motiles? Do People sometimes have an interest

ir'r u.tirtg fo. themselves and at other tines on behalf of others' or do peoPlc act

onlo' 1b.'rhemseltes? Philosophl' and pslcholog hale let to establish that PeopLe

,r""=r. "a,

ao",a"- ,o perceived ielf:inrerest; for this reason pslchological egoism re-

nlains a speculative hpothesis

Ethic.tt Egoisnr- Ethical egoism is a theon srating that rhe onlv valid srandard

of concLrct is the obligation !o promote one's t'ell-being above er'etrone elsc s'

\i1r"..u, p.u.hological egoism is a descriptire psvchological theon abl)irt htlnan

motivation, ethicaiegoisir is a normative theon about tvhat peopie ottght to ckr' Ac-

cording to pstcholog-ical egoism, people alrtals rJo act on the basis of perccived self-

interesi. Aicordinglo ethi.al "gni'-,

ptopit alruars ottgil lo act on the basis of

Derceired self: intert:r 't-- -- i , t t i ."t .goi.- is drematicl l iv differert f ion cornmon moral bel ief ls Consider

maxirns, such is abu're a sucker i f \oLr dun t Put \oulselt f i l st lnd Lrthers second"'

This rnaxin is general l l thought un:rLcePlf,bl" ' becruse ir is belicred that people

must return a l6st rvailet ro a koown o'vnir ancl that the,v must correct a bank loan

officer's erro$ in their favor' Nevertheless, questions about whv people should iook

out for the interests of others on such occasiols have troubled manv reflective per-

sons. Some have concluded that acting against one's interest is conlralv to reason

These thinkers, lvho regard conuentiJ"ai moraliq.-. as tinged with irrational senti-

menr ancl indefensible iorrstrairrts on the indi'idual, are the suPPoriers of ethical

egoisln. It is ot their liew that one should aiwals ignore the interests of oihers' but

.Jther thar o.te should cor-tsider tlie interests of others onlv rvhen it strits one's olvn

interests.Wha t$ou ldsoc iewbe l i ke i f e th i ca lego is rn *e tc thecon len t i ona l ' p re !a i l i ng

theon of ProPer conduct? Some philosophels and poli t ical theoists have arsued

thatanarc.hismandchaosrvouldresulrunlesspreventivemeasulesl{efeadopted.Aclassic statement of this position l\as made bv the philosopher Thomas Hobbes'

L h r . r l I l r c r , . r r ' I B r ' i , , " P r ' , , I ' ,

Imagine a norid uith limited resources. he said, rvl-rele Persons are aPPro\imeteh'

eqlral in their abilitv to harm ooe another end i!herc elerr'one acts e\ciusivciv ill his

or her interest. Hobbes argue<l that in such a rvorld er'enone rvould be at erervone

clsc's throal and s()cieLv \\,ould be plagued bv anxicn, \ ' ioience. and constant dan

ger \ Hobbes cleclared. li1'e rvould be "solitanr Po.rr. nast\', brutish, and \hurt. -

Houeler. Hobtres also asslrnted dt:ll hLlman beiugs are suflicieldl radonal lo rec-

ognizc their ir l teres1s. To arrr id *re $ar of al l against al l , he urged his rerders trr

for'm a porr'erlul government to protect dremsehes.hgoists accept l-{obbes s viel ' in the fol lowilg form: Anv ciever person t ' i l l re-

ai ize that she or he has no moral obl igations to others besides those obli5iat ions she

or he voluntarih: assunes because ir is in one's ol!'n inter_est to agree to allide bv

then. Each pcrson should accept moral . [ les and assume specif ic obligatiols onlv

when doing so pt-omotes one s self-interest. Er,en il one agrees to live unrler lat's of'

the state drat are binding on evetlone, one should obev nrles and la$s onlv to IJr'o-tect oneself and to cr-eate a sltrlation oI communal liring thaL is personalh advanta-

seous. One should also back out ofan obligation wheuever i t becomes clear that i t

is to onc s long-range disadvantagc ro fulfill Lhe obligation. tr\ en conliolted bv a

social revollrt ion, the questionable trustworthiness ofa col league, or an irrcumpe-

tenr administration at one's place of enrpk).rment, no one is under al obl jgation to

ober the larv. fulfill contntctsi or tell the tmth. Thcse obligatioris exist onlv because

one assurncs thenr, and one ought to assume lhem onlv as long as doing s,r pt, "n](ftes one s own lnterest.

An arangiement rvherebv ever-r'one acts on more or less fixcd rules such :rs

those found in conventional moral and legal srstems rvoulcl produce the most de-

sirable state ofaffairs from an egoistic poinL ofvie*. The reason is that such rules ar-

bitrate conflicts and rnake social lil'e nore asr-eeable- These rules rvould include. for

c:amp1e, femiliar moral and legai principles of jnstice rhat are intendccl to rnake

e\ef\ 'one s sltu: l t i()n rnofe secLrre and stable.()nlr arr undulv narro\r conception of sei l interest. the egoist might argue,

lcads crit ics to conclude that rhe egoist would not rvi l l inglv obseLle convcntionalmles ofjustice. I f socien can be stnrctured Lo resohe personal confl icls throughcourts and other peaceful means, egoists wil l r ieu' i t as in tbei l interest ro acccptthose binding social arangements. just as thet' $ill pcrceive it as prudenl to treat

other individuals favorablv in personal coDtacts. Notice that rhe egoist is not salingrhar his or her interests are sened bv prornoting the good of others but ralher isclxinring that his or-her personaJ interests are served br obsening impartial rules ir-

fespecrive of the ourcome for others. Egoists do not care about the we]fare ofotherstrnless ir affects rhcir u'ellare, and this desire for personal ll'ell-being alotle mLrd\ atesacceptance of the conventional rules of rnoraligv.

Egoistic Business Praciices .rnd Utilitarian Lerrlts. A di{I'erent rierv from that oFHobbes, and one that h:rs been e:i tremeh inf luenrial in rhe philosophl of the business commuDiq', is fbund in -\d:rm Smith's economrc and moral $,r i t ings. Smith be-l ieled that the public good evolves out of a suirablv restrained clash of c,,nrpcting

l5

l6 Lthical Theon enci Busiress Pfrcrice

incl ir, iciu:r l inrerests. -\ irrcl j | idu:r ls pursue their self: intcfcst. the i l t trrr, r i \ .c lr luLr:\is suidr--. i bv an ' inrisihlc hancl. cn!Luir ls rhar ahc pLrbl ir: inrerest is:rchierecl. Iron-ical lr, accor'cl irrg ro Smith. egoisni in commerci: l l nrnsa.t iolts lcads rtot fur the rr:rr-ol al l against ai l . but rarher to a utj l i tai i in ourcomc dttt is. to dle rusesL rrurnDcrof bcneflts for the largr:st lunber of persons. The t j ec rnitrket is. Srri th thought. abefter mcthod olac]r ier, ing rhe public goocl than rhe hiqhh risible and authoritar. i-an hancl of Hobbet : ell-porr'erful sor'er-eien state.

Slnirh belier ecl that go|entment should be l irrr irecl in orcic.f to prorcct iu.1i\ idual f ieedom. Ar thc sanie t ime. he rccog ize(l rhet concern r1ith f i 'er:clom ancl selfiuterest could set out ofcontrol. Hence. he pr-oposed thar nl inimal state rcguht{rt\ 'acdvin is needed ro proride and enlbr.cc the rl l les ol fhe compeLit i \c seltte. Sntith-spicture of a resarxi l ted egoist ic rvorld has capLi|etcd man.: people in the busincssancl economic corrrmunin. Thet. ] i le Snjth. do nol pi(:tnrc themselres as self ishard irrdi l lerent to t ire intercsts of others. arrd rhcr recopDize that a ccrtain elcnte11tof cooper-adon is esscntial i f their interests are ro l iorr sh. These peoplc recognizeLhat \\ ,hen their interests confl ict lr ' i th the interesls of ()thers. thcr shoulcl pursuetheil intelests wifhin the esrablisheLl rulcs of Lhe compclir i lc sirne. \\- irh in rhe nrlcsol business pracLice, thc! rLrrdcrsLand edtics :ts the ntrxims of :r suitabh, re:tr-:r ineclegoist. Their vie1\ is restraincd beceuse se11:intcrcst is kept }, irhin rh. boLrn.is of thcprclai l ing rtLles ofbusiness for the sake of l l te comlt iorr goocl.

\ Ianv people in thc bLLsiness communit\ have ac t iveh, s Ltpporrcd the \, ierr fharl l resuained egoisnl le:rds to conmenrlable uti l i tarjan outcomes. This is.rne f()rrn ofclclcnse of e free marhet cconontv: conrpetit ion arnong individual f irms adr anccstlte good of sociel as a lr{role. Hence. a popular viel o€ busiless ethics might beci: lprlrred bv rhe phrase 'Ethical egoism leads to uti l i tarial .r lrrcomcs., ' \ Smit lrsaid. corporatiorrs ancl incl ir, icluals putsuing thcif int l ividtel inrcrcsls t lrerclt\ .Jlt{)rnote the public good. so long:rs the\ abide br t l-re r-ules rhar pr.otect thc public.

-\n e\ample is fbund in the allc-r,ialioD of rrorlcl hurrger. \Ianl no$.arg-Lle Lilrfa l tettei l i fe lbr rhe poor iD man\'trr l t ions is the re-su]t of capiral ist ic bcha,"ior Thevclaior Lhat. as a ntaLter of historical l i rct. capital ist ic investoledt ancl producti l in. iD_crease jobs. soci i l l welfare, social cooperation, \r,caith in socien.,: lncl nroral lv re_sponsible behar' ior. The thesis is that these benefits rccrLle \\ , ideh.across the societr,.all'ecrin g both poor- and lvealdr\r even if the goal of capitalists is p rrrrh thrrr r,r, ncconomic gain.3

NORMATIVE ETHICAL THEOBY

The central question discussed in this secrion is .\ \hat consritutes an acccpraDleethical standard I i)r busiuess pracrice. and b1 i\ ' l i :r t authofin, is the standard accept,ablci" One t ime-honor-ed ans\rer is rhat dre acceptabii i$ of a moral srandarrl isdeLernrined bv pre|ai l ing pracLices in busint:ss or bv arrrhoritarir,e. pr-ofcssion-genelrted document5 such as codes. \[anr, businesspersods f ind this vier.poirtr rutr-genial and therefore do l lor see the need lbr revisions in pracrices Lhar rhe1.f indalread\. comfor-rable and a(-lequare.

Edlicrl Ther)r\ ir ld Bllsirrcss Pracl lce

Professional i taddards do plav a rolc in blrsiness elhics aDd wil l bc discussecl

in this book in sorrre detai l . Llt imatch,, horvever. the irrternal rrorel i t ! of bLtsiness

does not supplv a comprehensile l iameruork for ihr: nlanv Pr'essins qrlestions of

business ethics. Nloral in in the riorld of business e\ohes in the face of social

change and crit ical phi losophical argument: i t cannot relr entir-elv on i ls ol ln his-

Lorical tradit ions. fts standards therel ir le need lo he justi l led iD Lerms of indepen-

dent erhical standards such as those of public opinion. 1a$, arlcl phi losophical

ethics-just as the moral norms of a cultute need to be justi l ied bv more than art

appeal to those norms themseltes. For_ this leasort. Lhe htcr par_ts in rhis secl ion

are devoted to a discLtssion ofrvidell discussed thcories end anahscs of morali tv in

the histor-r of phi losophr.

Utilitarian Theories

Uril i tarian theories hold that the nroral rrorth of actions or Practices is delermjned

b\ their consequences. An action or practice is r ight i l i t leads to the best Possiblebalance of good consequeoces o' ier bad corlseqLrences fol- al l the Part ics ; l f fectcd

ln taking this perspecti le, ut i l i tarians believe th:1t the PLtIpose or furlcLion ot noral-

i t \ is lo promoie human \!elfare bv mjninl izing harms ancl naximizing beneli ts

The first developed utilitarian philosophical wrirings were those ofDavicl Hurne

(1711-1776), Jeremy Bentham (17'13-1832). and John Stuan \ l i i l (1806-1373)

)1111's L'tilitaianisn ( 1863 ) is still todav considered thc standald erposition llill dis-

cusses tr\'o foundations or sources ol utilit2rrian thinkillg: a |lormalt;ira tbu[dirtion in

rhe "principle of utilitv" ancl t pqthtirgncal foutclation in human naLure. lIe pro-

poses his principle ol ut i l i tr ' - the 'grealest haPPiness p.lnciPle -as the forrrr( lat ion

of normative ethical theon'. Acdons :ue riglit. Nlili sa!s. il ploportiort Lo their ten-

dencv to pronote happiness or abscnce ol pain. ind \ iong insofar as thev tcnd to

produce pain or-displeasure. According to Nli l l . pleasu|e ancl freedom fi-om pain

are alone desirable as er-rds. Al l desirable things (lhich are nunerous) ere desirable

eirher lbl the pleasurc inherenl in them or as mearns ro pronote Pleasure and pre-

vent Pain.Nlill's second foundatiol derives from his belief that rnost persons. and per-

haps all, have;r basic desire for uniw and harmou tith their lcllo\\ hrtman betngs.

fust as people feei horror at crimes, he savs, thel 'hare e basic moral scnsil ivirr to the

needs of others. Nlill sees the Puryose ofrnoralin as tapping natur-:rl human svmpa-

thies to benefit others, rvhile controlling unsl]llpathetic attitudes thet cause harnl

to others. The principle of ut i l i t \ i5 conceived as the besL neans to lhese basic

l-tuman goals.

Essential Features of Lltilitarianism. Several essential feattLres of utilitarianismcan be e\tracted from the reasoning of ]Iill and other utilirarians. First. utilitarian-ism is committed b the maxinization ol the good arrci the minimization of harm

alrd evil. It assert's thal soci(]w ought al\l'a'S to produce the greaLest possiblc ba]:lnce

ol positive value or the minimum balence of disvalue lbr all persons effected. The

means to maximization is efficienc\', a goal rhat persons in busirress fincl congenial,

t7

I 8 EthicaL Theor\ en.l Btrsiness l] .acl i l :e

bccause it is highlr prized throughout the econornic ser:LoL l-f f icieno is a me'ins to

highcr prol i ts antl loruer prices. ancl t l ie stnrggle to be nlaxi lulh Plofl tal l le seeks to

ollain ma:<irnult Prodltct i()u l ionl l i r l t i recl cctxtonlic resourccs The lrr i l iLrr ian

courmiLucnr Lo the principie ol oprirnal prorluctivitr r l i rorrgJh el l icir--no is 'r l rsscn-

ri :r l part of the t lacl ir iorlal busincss colceptitrn of socien and a slend'Lrcl par' t of

business practice.\Ianv bu:inesses, as r lel l as g()\ 'eI11mcnt agencies. have rt loptecl specif ic lools

such as cost benefit alalvsis r isk as-\essi lenr, or l l lal lagenent l lv objccrires-al l of

$ir ich arc strongh inl luencetl br a uti l i radal philosophr: Other l lbinesses do not

crrplov sLrch specif ic tools, but make rtt i l i rarieD juclgnrents ebout the bencli$ ancl

.ori , ol l^,,off . ". .upping

ach'errising calnPil iens. end rcducing cl iscr-etion:rrv spend-

ing. Thorigh unpopular in the shorFter.r l l , Lhcse adjLrstmedts are olten u'elcomecl

b.i . . ,r" r lr-. . ,er.c.1irected at long_Lernr f i^lncir l impro'cmenr and i<_rb scr:,r i*. In

this lespcct Lusiness harl lors a fundamenLallv uti l iL:1.ian con'ePtion of the goals of

i ts ente.p.ise. I luch the sl i lc is true of the goals of public polid in rhe lrnited

States.Thc neecl bolh to minimize irarnt and Lo balance r:isks agailst benelirs has

beeD a perennial concern of lhe business comrnuninl for e\i lmple e\e'Lrt l les ln

the petiolculn inclusl lv know rhar oi l ancl gis operadons ei isr tenl l()uslv l l i lh lr 'ct '

lancL ateas. rlaLerforr'l. ancl llslt However il thc derlands of U S consutncrs are to

be met. corporate ancl Public policies must balancc possible en\ironlrerrlal harnls

agrinsr the beDefits of inclusrl ial ptoclucrir i tv Similarlr" rhose ir1 Lhc nucicar po\ter

inrlustrv knot that L . S. porver plants ;rre hl l i l t \vith heira containment stnrcturcs t(r

rr'irhsrend internal feilr.Lres; bul dlev also recognizc the possibilit\ of rllajoI. disaster-s

such as rhat at ChernobYl, in rhe former USSR, in 1986. Plantring for such strr 'rr-

trLles rcquiles that lhe Planncrs bdirnce Public bencfits, probabil in of fai lrrrc and

rhe nlagritude of harm in dle evcl lr ()f fai lLire.

A .second esscnti:rl feature of the utiliurian theorl is e tlLeln L)i tltt' gootl' EfIi-

ciencl i tsclf is simplv an ir lstntncntel good; lhxt is ' i t is raluable suicth i ls a nleans

Lo somerhing else. ln the corPoralioll. efllciencr is \i'Lluable as a lneans to grcr\\'th

:rncl ro prolit Inaxirnization. \\'irhin the fiee ellterPrise s\slem ol comPetiDg firlns,

ellicierc,: is valuable es a mearts tortarcl rnaximizing the Pr-oduction oI goods ancl

sel1ices. \{ i thin ul i l i tarial l ethical thcon eff icienr:\ is the means lbr nrr" inrizirrg

l l L r n r J n q ' o , l .

But lrhat is -g()od" ac()rdinpi lo the utilinrian: An ans\i-cl to thls questlon carl

be formed 1rl consiclcl ing the Ne\\ ' lorL stock malket Dailv restt l ts on \\:al l Street

are nor i triusicallv good The-v are ertt-insicallv good as a mel1]ls t() other ends'

such as f inanciai seclrr i t \ and h:rppiness Uti l i tarians belie\.e thar PeoPle oLLght to

orient their l ives arourrd condit irxrs Lhat xre good in thernseh'es rvtthol l t retereDce

to furLhcl conscqlrenccs. Health. i i iendslt\ l , and f ieedom l iorn pain are among

sur:h values.Ho\\ 'evcr. Lrl i l i t : t l i r lns cl isagree concerl l ing 1{hat consliLuLes the complete

raDg,-- of things or states dlat are good Benthen :rncl l{ i l l arc hedoDists T}rer be

lieve rhat onlv pleasure or hapPiness (svnonvmous for the purposcs of rhis discus

sion) can be intr insical lv good Elenthing besides pleasLrte is insttumcntal lv gooti

to rhe end of pleasure. ,rLdrnirt ic uti l i tarians- t l len. l lel ie!e lhat an! act ()r pracuce

hthical Theon rnd Business Practice

that marimizes pleasurc (when cornParccl \r ' i th a1l\ alternxtire act a)l practice) rs

right. I-ater udliurian philosoPhers have argued tha! other lalLres besidcs Pleasurcpossess inrr insic worth, f i)r erample, fr icndship, knort leclF..c, couuse health. arlcl

beaun. L-t i l i rarians who bcl iele in mult iple intr insic lalues :tre referled to as

11Lr.r./litl;. utilitaians.In recent philosoph\. econornics. and Psvchologl ' , ncithcl the approar:h of the

treclonists lor Lhat of rhe pltual ists lus prelai lecl. Both approachcs hale seemed rel

rd\eh useless lbr pu.poses of objecti\'elv eggregati g rr'idel! different irterests Ar-

oiher appr-oach appeals ro indivichal Prefercnces- From this persPcctive. lhc

concept of uri l in is understood not in tcrms of sLates of affajrs such as happiness.

but jn terms ol rhe satisfaction of indiviclual pr-ef-erences. as detenined b\ :1 per-

so 's beha\ior- In the language of busiDess, uti l i t \ is measured bt a P€rson \ Pulchases or pursuits. To n-rarimize a Person s uliiitr is to Pro\idc that rvl-rich he or she

has chosen olt'ould choose fron among the alailablc alter-n:rtives To m-1\iluizc

thc utilit-r of all persons affected bv an action or e Polic\ is to nariimizc the utilitr ()f

rne aggaegarc g1-{)uP.Although thc prel 'erence based uti l i tarian apploach ro ralue has been rier 'ed

bf man! as superior to its predecessors, it is nor trouble_liee as an elhical theor\'. -\

major problen ar' ises over nroral iv unacceptal l le Prcfcrences. For- ex:rmple, an air_

line piiot mav pr-efer to have a tt$ bcer-s before goittg to \tork, or an emPlovnlent

ollicer nrv prefea to disc minate agaiDst u'onerr, \et such Preferences are rllorelh'

irrtolerablc. Lt i l i iarianism based purelv on sLlbjective Preferenccs is satisfacton,

tht-n. onlv i f a rarrge of lcceptable prelerences can be lbnnulatcd. This lartcr task

has proved cl i l f icult in theory and it iral 'bc inconsistertt rvith a Pure Prefcrence lp-

pr-o:rcli. Shoulcl products like cigareLtes. lltrertorks. and senriautomallc rilles bc

1ega11;- prohibitecl because ther carrse halnt. even lhoush manr, people lloulcl pr.e-

fer to purchase thertr? Hou,could a Prcference uti l i tarian ans$'er this qlrt\Liu1l:

One possible uti l i ta an response is lo ask whether societ\ is beliel ol l as a

rJrole then rhese preferences are Plohibired and'"r 'hen lhe cl ioices of rhose desir-

ing thcm arc frustreted. l f thesr: products l 'ork againsl t1-re lar ger objecri les of uri) i-

rarianism {ma\imal public telfare) b1 creating unhappirress, rhe uti l i radan coulcl

argr. le that plefercnces fbr ' Ll iese producLs shoulci nol be counted in dle calculus of

pleltrerrces. Preferences that serve to frusfale the preferenccs of others l t 'olr ld

then be ruled out bl the goal oi uri l i tarianism.A third essential leiltllre of ulilitarianism is its committnent to the lreasur'e-

menr and compar-ison of goods. With rhc hedonistic r ierv, people must be able to

mcesurc pleasureble and painful srares and be able to conpare one pcrsoll 's plea-

sules ldth another's to decide which is grearer Benlham, fot example, * 'orked out

a ncasurement device that he called thc hctlanir r:altulus. He tliought he could add

rhe quantitative unil-s of individual happiness, subtract dre unis ol individual un-

happiness. and therebv ar le at a total measule of haPpiness. Bv the use of this sl s-

tem it is al legedlv possible to determine the act or practice lhat { i l l provide thc

greatcsi happiness io lhe gaealest nurnber of people.

\\rten Benrham's l-reclonic calcLtlus Lurned out to be of l i rnited Ptacdcal value,

\I i l l substituted the c terion of a panel of expcls (persons of requisite .\pui-

ence). Because Xli l i bel ieved that sonrc pleasures rvete better t l ian olhers, a device

l 9

20 Ethical Theon and Brrsiness Pract icc

was needed to de.ide l lhich pleasures wcre in lact better. The erpers l ' 'ere desig-rratecl to fill that [ole. Sul]sequenti\', this idea of \Iill s also turncd out to be of limit-ed pr:lctical \':rlue. and the notion of ao,tirrrar" ar{rial \ras substi[ued in some theories.Cor'tsumer behalior ' , in this conception. can be empirical lr obser'red as paiceschugc in the market. I f onc assumes that consunels seek to rationallv order andmaxirnize their prcfercnces. given a set ol pr'ices. an olrjecti'c mcasurement of Lltil-i t l is possiblc.

Act and Rule Utilitaiaaism. fitilitarian rr oral philosophers are conlentionalhdivided into frfo tvpes-act urilitarians and rulc utilitarians. t\n ad ulil,itarian argrLes rhat in,r l l si tuations onc ought to pcrform that act that leads to the greatestqoocl for the greatesL number. The act utilitarian re[iards ruies such as "!bu oughtto tel l the truth in making contrrcts" and "\bu ought not to manipt ate personsthroush adveltising" as useful guideiincs. but also as expendable in business andother relatioDships. An act uti i i tarian would not hesitate ro break a moral rule i fbreakine it !r,ould lead to the grcatest good for the grearest number in a part icularcase. /itle utilit[rians- however. reserle a rrore signilicant place fo[ rulcs. !\,hichthel do not regard rs expe dable on grounds rhat uti l iF is ma\imized in I parricu-lar cl lcurnstance,

There are many applications of both t\ ,pes of ut i l i tari :u1ism in businesserhics.: 'Consider r ire folklving case in thich U.S. business practices and standardsmn up :rgainst the quite di l lerent practices of the Ital ian business conmunity. Thecase involves the tax problems encounrered bl the Italian subsidian of a majorU.S. bank. In ltah the practices of corporate texarion tlpicallv involve elaborarenegotiadons among hired conpanv representati les and the Ital ian tax service, andthe tari statement init ialh submitted bv a corporation is regardec.l as a dranrt icalhunderstated bid inrended onlv as a start ing point for rhe negotiarin€i process. Inthe case in question, the U.S. manager ol the Iral ian banking subsidian decicled,against the advicc of locall ,v exper-ienced la$\ers and tax consultants. to ignore thenatire Ital iaD pracl ices and f i lc a convcntioDal U.S.-st\, le rax statelnent (that is, onein I|hich the subsidiary's profi ts for the !ea1 \r,ere nor draDatical lr trnderstated).His re:rsons fbr this decision included his belief that the local customs \ ' iolated themorel mle of truth rel l ing.r lr

An acr urilirarian might well take exceptiorr ro rhis coDclusion. -\dmittedh, rolile ar Italian-snle tax staremcnt r,-'oulcl be to \iolate a moral rule of truth relling;but the act utilitarian wor,rld argue that such a rule is onlv a guideline and canjusti-fiablv be liolated to produce the greatest good. In the present case, the greatesrgood rvould er'identll'be done br fblloting the local consultants' advice to conformto the Italian p.actices. Only b-v foliou'ing Lhose practices will the appropriateamount of tax be paid. This conclusion is strensthened bl the ultimate outcome ofthe present case: The ltal ian authorit ies forced rhe bank to enter iDto the cusrom-ar v._ negotiations. a process in $hich the original, truthftrl tax statenrent t\ras treatedas an understated opening bid, and a dramaticalh excessite tax pavmentl{as conse-cluendv exacted.

Erhical Theon and Busincss prectice 2l

_ In contrast Lo the posirion ofrcf Lrtir ita ans..rle rrr itariens hord that r*rcs

hel'e a cenrral position in noralin that cannot be cotl lprornisecl bt rhe dcnrands ofpi,rf i, ulJr sitrLati,,ns. SLtLh c,Inrprontise threatens the general ell.ecti lcltess rl1 therules. rn e | ,hsrtr.t r r.e , , i rr h ich rn.rxintizes soci:rl uti l in. For the .rle .t i l i taria'. then,acticlns irejusrif ied b. airpeal ro absfl.act rLrles such as.,Don.t kil1,, ..f)on,t bribe,,.and 'Do1r't break pr.onrises., ' These mles, in turn. arejusril ied br.an appeai to theprinciple of uri l in,. The rule uti l i tariar-r believes this pisirion .ari.scape rhe obJec_trons to trct Llt i l i tarianisln, because rulcs are not subjcct to chaltge bv lhe demanclsofincli'idual circ.mstances. Lrtilitar-ian r-rrles are in ri.o* I,irm ai.l pr,rtecri'e ofallclasses ol individuals,just as hurlan riehts are rigiclh protectile of ali individu:rls re,gardlcss ofsocial convenience and monr"rr,"ao n""i l. '

. \ , , r u r i l i , r r i . rn . I ra r , . . r rep l r ru L l re . r e t r r i , i . r , r . I l re r r rg , rc r l r r r rhe r r r . d r l r i r doPtt'rn _Dcvond tql 'rt ing rrrJcs and srricrlv olreving thent. u,hich is th2rt |he rulesshould be obel.ed anh sametin.r.

citicisnu of utihtaiani^sm. A rn{or problem lirr ut itarienism is l\,herher unils ofnaPPlness or sonte other uti l i ta atL rrluc c.tl1 he me;sulrcl Jtrcl cr]mpared t[ orclerto dctermine Lhe besr acLion among rhr alter n:tires. 1,l ,t.. ia ing ,, h.iner ro open apr'siine,\laskrn rri ldiife presene to oii erploration and tjr. i l l ini, f,r. "r.-p,.,

r,rlu.loes one compa.e the combined ,.^hre of a,, increase in ttre Jit supptr,. loUr. arraconsumer_ purclrasrng pr>lr,'er lr,ith the r,alue of tvildlife preset,\,atio; ano enriron_mental protectioni Hor cloes a r.esponsible official_ar, sar: rhe \\,illiam a.cl,\{eii'_da Gates Foundation-decicle hu\! r, , di5r ibure timit.d ftr,,Js'lttocared forcharitable conrriburions (1br example. as rhis Foundation tr,,, a.lia.,r, Lo r,'rernadonal vaccinarion and chilclren': health prognnrs)? f, _rfrr"," 'r.. i . l auclit (anc\aluarioD ofrhe companr.'s acts ofsocial responsibil iLvt ive.J *"Iltf*a horv couldth r -rr Ldi r, , L m er\ Lrr F dn d rn nrpn rr a c()rporation,s ethical asseLs anj l iabil i t ies?rnc , l r t l u r r l r cp l ' i . r l r . r , r l r_ r l l _ge , l f rob lcn r i se i rh_r r p {c ldnpJ i i l , l r rn ! r rJ p.oblem that aft 'ects all etl.r ical theorics. i 'o,pl" n,ul..r.,. iJ. ,ougt _"r,a_.."a"

comparisolrs of Ya]ues el'en, dar: including those of pleasures ,rrra i;rir*.r. fo. .r<

::.:: ):1,:l:::.icte to so as e group to a bar.r-athei th:rn have an office parfi,, bc,cause rrc\ rhrnk rhr ber tilttrion tvill sarisfr, ntor-e mernben of th. gi,llp.Util i tarians acknolledge that accurate measuaements of others. goods or preter_en-ces can_seldon be pror,ided becarrse of linited knorvledge ur,d ti',rr.. Ir_,

".."*d"":ll-11:, .i:h *

lr,-hasing supplies, admirristering t usirresr,til;;;";iil;; ;:ct-stons, severely l imited knorrledge regarding the consequeDces of on. s a.tLons rsoften al1 that is available.Util i tarienism has also been .rit icizecl on rhe grounds dlat it ignores nonutil!ta an factors tl'tat are needed to makc mor;rl cleci:iotrs. The most p;ominent ontis_sion cited is a considerarion oF iusricc: The :icriun ,frri- p..J"i"i ' ,n. g_.,*,balance of value. fo, th. gr""t..r

',,,,,nber of people .r,,r' b;;r;;;;;"; unjustifiedtrcatilent of a minoriB: Suppose socierv r_lecides that tire public i'ntercst rs sened b"denvirrg health insurance to those resdns posirive ibr the AIDS vi."r. i;.";r;; ;"lhe interest of efficiencrl suppose insurance companles are arlolved to use lil.est!.re

---

22 l-thical Theon ancl Business Practicc

cheracte -srics that are stetist ical lv associarcd with an enharrced risk of A]f lS. Final-lr. srrppose slrch policics \roulcl sene the iargcr publicr 's f inancial interest. Uti l i t i rr ianisir seems La requift Ll7aL publjc la\r aDd insuriuce coDpinies det)! corerlge toAIDS rict ims. If so, nould Dot this denial bc unjust to rhose tho har,e -\ lL)S or are athigh risk for conrracting AIDS:

crit icisrrs. thet al l cntai lecl cos$ and bellef iLs {rf

an acl ion or practice mr$t bc \\eighed. idcluding, for cxamplc. tbc costs that $,oul<1occur from modifving a polir ical consriurt ion or r stateirent of basic r ights. In a de-cision that aflecls emplovee and cor]sntner salen. fbl exampie. the c()sts often in-clude protesrs lrom labor and co[sLuner groLrps. public criticism from the press.f[r-ther r l ienatiol of emplot 'ees from crecuti les. the loss of customers t,r cornperiLors. ancl Lhe like. Also, rule utilirarians denl that rrarror.,cost-benelit deter_nina-tions are acceptable. Thev algue thal general rules ofjustice ($hich are tllenrsch'esjusti l ied br broad considerirt ions of ut i l iw) ouqhr to constrain pardcrrlar actionsand uses ot cost-bcncfit calculations. Rule uri l i tal ians rnainuiD that the crit icisms ofutilitarianisin prerioush noted are shortsightecl becatue thev fbcus on injusrirtjdrat r ight bc caused through a superf icial o. short-term lpplication of the princi-p1e ol urilin. In a long-range vier,. utilitarians argue. pronotilli urilit\ does notelentuate in overal l uojust outcomcs.

Kantian Ethics

In 1999 CNN reported th:rt oll ine shoppers who risired rhe Interner auctron sr.ecBav rvere surprised to lind a "Iirllv fLrnctional kidnr:v" fcrr sale br a man giving hishome as "Sunrise. Florida. He rvls ploposing ro sell one of his trvo kidnevs. Theprice 1-rad been bid up to morc than $5.7 mill ion belirre eBav intenened and ter-minated the (i l legal) auction. " Alhough it nas nelcr determined lhether rhis auc-tion \{as genuine, it is knolr'n th:rt kidnevs are for sale in sorne pa s {)f-\sia, norablrIrrdi:1. One srudv showed (after locating 3il5 sellers) that Indians \\,ho sold their kid-nevs actuallv lvorsened rather than bettercd theil l lnancial position as a rcsult ofthe sale: the stud,v also sho{ed Lhat some men forced their $,ir,es to sell a kiclner:r!L-respectivc of the consequences of a kidne,v salc. manl people look *-ith moral indignation on the idea of sell ing a kidnel rvhetl ier in the L l ited Stares or in lr idia.Thev see it as exploitation, racher than opponunio'. \\'hat is it about selling a kidnelthat provokes this sense of moral unfairnessi

Kdntidn Rcspe.t for Persoru. Immanuel Kanr s (172.1-180.1) ethical theon m:\help clarif i the basis of this concem. A folloter of Kanr could argue rhat usinghuman organs as commodities is t() treat human beings:rs though the-l lvere merelvmachines or capital, and so co clenv people the rcspecr appropriare to tireir digniqas rational humar-r beings. Kant argues that persons shouid be treated as ends andner,er- purelv as rneaDs to the ends of orhers. Thrt is, failure lo respect pcrsulr! i5 totreat another as a rneans in lccordance with one s oan ends, and thus as if thel werenot independent agents. To exhibit a l:rck of respecr for a pelson is to r-eject theperson's consiclered judgmena, to ignore the person's concerns and needs, or to

Erhical Theon rrcl BlNiress Pr'ac!icc

deDv the pr:rson the l ibcrn to acL on th ose j l l . lgmen rs. FoL example. nanipulativeaclvenisir 'rg thet alttcDrpts to fr.rke sa]cs bl interfering t, i th rhe potenrial burcr's reflectivc clxrice r iolates rht ' priDciple of respect l i)r persons. In the case of kir lnersa1es, alnost al l scl lcrs are in clesperatc por,ertr, ancl clesperate need. Poientialh al lorgan . lonetions ' t i l l come f l_om the poor. l t i le the r ich a,,,oir l clen donati lgrheir kidrrt--vs to lhci l relaLives- In effcct, the orga[ is treatcd as a commodit! anddre onner of the organ as a means to a purchaser's ends.

In l i l l iLialt t ireories rcspect frrr the htrntan being is saicl to be necessan' notjLrst as atl option or at one s cl iscrction-because human beings possess a moral dig-nit | ancl theretbr_e should not l le trearecl as i f thev hacl merelv the condit ional valuepossessecl hv machiner-\ ' , iddLlst l ial plants, r 'obots, irnd capita]. This idea of "respecrlbr persons" has sonetirnes been erpressed in cor'porate contexls as 'reJpect f i trthe incl i \ idual. ' - \n example in business ethics is foond in the practices of Southwest-\irlines, r'liich has the reputation of tr_ertine it-s crnplolees and custt>rrers l'ith un-usual rcspect. Emplovees report that thev feel l'ree to elipress the1nseh€s as indiridu-l ls aDd that rher feel a strong loveln to thc air l jne. Followins the rcrr-orist atracks ofScpternber l l , 201)1, Southrvest was thc ooh i ir l i l te drat cl id Dot l i ! olf emploveesor rcclucc i ts l i ieht schedLLle. -\s I consequence. s()n1e emplo\ees ol lerecl to rvorko\eatinre. rridrout pav. to s.rve the coDp2inv monev t[1til people resumed llring.r]rThe l irrn prides irsel l on a relationship $,irh al l stakeholders thar is a rel ionship ofpersoos, rather than sintph a relationship of economic tra sactions.

Some have interpreted Kant to hold catego call ! Lhat people can never treatother persons as r mc:lns to their ends. This inrerpretatiorr fai ls ro appreciate thesubrleties of Lhe theor,-: Ihnt dicl nor caregorical l | prohibit the Llse ot persons asmeerls to the en.ls o[ other peoplc. He argrecl oDlv t ir : l t people lnust ]t()t treat anothcr ^aft l t?r. 'a^ras a nleans to their ends. An cxamplc is fbund in circurnsra ces irrrrhich ernpkrrees are ordered to perform odious tasks. Clearl l dte\ are being trcat-cd as a r leans to nn ernploler's or a supenisor's ends. but the empiovees are not ex-alusi\eh Ll lecL lbr other-s purposes becaLrse drer'are uot nefe senan$ or objects. Intul econonric cxchange suppose thatJones is using Smith to achiere her end, butsimilarh Srnith is using.fones ro achieve her end. So lolg as the exchange is l ieclvenLered iDt() \r i lhout coercion or decepdon b| either parn. rreither p:rrtr has usedthc other merelv for her end. Thus er.en in a hierarchical o.ganization an emplo\.er.an be Lhe boss \; i thout erploit ing the eniplolee. so l(rrrg as the ernplovee freelv en-tercrl into that reiadonship. The ke! to oot using olhers mereh'as r nlerns is Lo re-sP!-ct thelr-aolo omr.

This interpretation sug3-ests th: l t dre example of the kiclnev does not neces-s:uilv shorr'anr dislespect [br persons. Kant seems to require onl,v rhat each individ-v,a\ wll the acr4)tan.e of Lhose pdltciples on *hich he or she is acring. If a personlieel l acccpts a certain lbrrn of acrion ancl ir is not inrr insical lv immoral, that per-son is a lree beidg and has a risht to so choose. Selling I kidnev therefore might falli n to th i s ca teqo t r .

Kant's theor-v linds nrol ai for actions ro be ol the highesr irnporrance, in thatit expecls persons to make the tighr de ctsiona Jar the ight r?asons. lfpersons are hon-est onh l lecause thev believe Lhat honest! pars, their "honesn" is cheapened. It

-

l : thicrl Thco|\ ;rnd Busircss Prxcri.e

seelns l ike no honestr at al i . onh an actio[ Lhit appeiirs to be honesl. For example.\\'her coapofate execoti\es arlnoLrnce thrt Lhe feasoll the\' nade thc rrr:)r':rllv con-ectclecision lras because it rms g-oocl for thei l business. this reaso|r seems to have noth-idg to do \\'irh nlor:llin. i\.corcling to llrrrdan thinking. if a corporatior does theright thirrg onh when (and f irr the reeson rhar i t is profirable or lhcn it l i l l cnjovgood pLLblicitr ' , i ts decision is prudenrial, not moral.

(lonsider Lhe fcr11o\.ing three erianrples ol rlrree peoplc lllaking personal sacn-fices for a sick relatire. Frecl makes the sacrificcs onh because he fear's the social criti-cisn rhat would result if he failed to do so. He hates .loing it an.l secletlv rescntsbcing invohed. Sarn. bv contrast- derives no personai satisfiction from nking care ofhis sick rel:rtile. He rlould rather be doing other rhings arrd m:rles the sacniicc pure-lv from a sense of obligation. Bill. b! conrrasr, is a kind-hearteci pcr_sr:lrr. He cloes notrie} his actions as a sacrifice and is norilated b\ the satisfaction that comes fi'omhelping othcrs. Assume in these tirree c:1ses thaL the conseqrrences ol ali thc saclificialacti()ns are eclu:Lllv good and that rhe sick relativcs afe arlerluateh cared fbr_, as eachagent intends. The quesrion to consider is $hich peNons are behaving in a moraihpraise\rorlh! manner If utilitari:ln theon' is ilsed. this question ]rra\ be herd to an-srrer. especirlh iJ acr Lrtili1arianism is rhe theon in qucstion, because the good conscqucnces in each case are identical. The Iirrrian belieles, houcler that moti\es-inparticula[. moti\€s ofmoral obligation-count subslaldallv in moral evahuLioD.

It appears that Fred's niotir.es are rloL Inoral motires but motives oI pnrclencethat sp ng fron lear Although his actions have sood conseqLre ces. Fred does notdesen,e anv rnoral credir for his acts bccause the\' ar'e not IIroralh moti\ated. f() rec-ognize rhe prudential basis of an action does not detract lioin the lioodness of an|cl]rrrseqLLerces it mav have. Given rhe purpose or hrncti(D of rhe buslness cntr.r-prise, a moti le of sel l : intcr 'est rnav be rhe mosr appropriate motir,e to ensure go()dconsequcnces. The poinr. horvever, is thalt i1 business execlrt i \e derives l1o spccialmoral credit l i rr acting in the colporare self- interest. elcn i f socien is benefited b1'and satisiied l'ith the acdon.

IfFrccl 's motive is not mor-al. lr ,hi l t about Bil l 's :urcl Sarn'si Flere moral phi loso-phers disagrce. Iiant maintained that moral action must be notivated br moralobligation alo[e. Fron this perspective, Sam is the onh incl ir idual whosc acLioo:nav be appropri:rtel,v described as noral. Bill desen'es no more credit tharr Fred.because Bil l is motivared bv the emotions of s,vmpathv and compassion, not bvobligarior-r. Bill is natlraliv kind-heartcd and has been well socialized bv his iamilr",but this moti\,ation mcrits no noral praisc ftom :r Xantian. rdro belicves that actionsmotivated bv self- lnterest alone or compassion alone cannot bc n)oral lr praiserrr,r-thl. To be desen'ing of morai praise, a person niust act froni obligation.

To elaborate this point. thnt insisted rhat all pe$ons must ac! fbr thc .ralic ofobligation-nor merel'; in auordanca uil, obligation. That is. the person\ morive lbraction rnust inroh€ a recogrition of the cluF, to act. K1nt hied ro establish the ultinate basis for thc ralidin ol rules of obligation iD pur'e reason. not in intlrition, con-science, utilit\'. or compassion. \Ioralis prorides e rutional l'rarnework of principlesand rules that constrain and guide all people. indepenclent ol their personal goalsand preferences. He believed that all consideratiorx ofutilin and self-inlerest are sec-

Eihicrl The,:rr! arrd BrNincss Prir. l ice

ondarv, because the moral \!'orth of an agent's action dt-pelds exciusivell on the

rnoral accepnbilin ofthe rule according lo \t'hich the Prrson is acting ot' es liant pre-

f-en ecl to sal. moral acceptabilin depencis on Lhe rule thrt determines the agent s r"ill'

,\n action has nioral \voltil onlv ifperformed bv an agent l'ho possesscs rt hrt IiLn t

called a "gooc1will." ,\ person fras a eood rrill onlv il the sole lrodve lirr actron is nl')rrl

obligatiori, ls deremlined b\ a rrniler-sal rule ofobligation. liant clerekrped rhir notion

i to-a fr.rnclamental rnoral lan: 'I ought neler to act excePt irl such a tr'ar dlat I can also

\\ill ihat mv ma-rim shor.rld become a univeN?ll lar:' Krnt orlled this prittciple the

.ategoi.0[ inpo ati,re.It is caceSlorical because jt admis ol no exceptiotls ancl is absoluteh

Unrcling. It ii imperative because it gnes instmctlon about horn'one trust act He gave

serer-al contloversial examples of imper-atile moral maxinrs: "Do not lie," 'Flelp others

in distress." "Do not commlt suicide," and \[ork to clevelop lour abi]ities '

IJniuersalizabiti$. I(ant s stnleqv- 1!'as lo sho$ thal thc accePtance ut ter trin

kinds ofaction is self-defeating, because zrzilarsal participzrtion in such helrrvior uD-

clermines the action. Some of the clearest cases involve persons \t'ho make e unique

exception for thensehes for pur-eh self ish rcasol- ls. Supposc a persorr con"idus

breaking a pronise that $ould be incon\elr ient to keeP According ro [anr' the per'

son nlusl hrst formulate her or his reason as a univer'sal rule The rule \\ould szLr''' 'Elenone shoulcl break a promise wheneler keeping it is inconvenient " Such a

rule is contradictory, thnt held, because if it rvere consisterlth' recommended that

all incliritlLrals shouid break their promises when it l'as convenient fbr ihenr to do

so. the pritctice of making prolnises would be senseless. Cli\ en the n:rturt of il

promise. a rule al lowing people to break promises \\ 'hen ir becomcs 'on\trr ient

makes the institutiou of promise-making uninlelligible -\ Nle that allor\'s cheating

on an exan similarlv negates the purPose of testing.

Ihnt 's belief is that the conduct st ipulated in these rules could not be made

onil.ersal withorlt some form ol conradiction emerging lf a cot-porarion kites

rhecks to reap a profir in the \\'av E. F. Hutton Brokerage did in a scandnl thar lcd tlr

the end ofthe f lrm, the corpotation makes iselfan exception lo the sYsrem ()1 lnon-

e|aN transler. therebv cheating the s,tstern. rvirich is established bv ccrtairl rulcs

This concluct, ifcarried out bt orher corporatioIrs, \'io]ates the rulcs presIpp'-'sed br

the svstem, thereby rendering the system inconsistenl. Similarlr', rhe Rus'i;rn ett'rto-

mv has been stal led in recenl vears because supplie$ were not being paid for the

goods ancl senices thev pro\ided lf such pmcdces lt 'ere 'universalized' ( in Kant's

iense), suppliers w'ou1d stop supplvilig. Russia h:u alsrl had difficuln in establishing

a stock merket because the information on the businesses l isted tas so i lrac(uraLc

lf deception 1\ere "universal" (that is, widelv practiced), investo.s woukl nr-rt iDYest

and a stocl market \\ould be untenable. Iiant's r'ierv is that actions involving inva-

sion of pri lacy, theft, l ine cutt ing, cheating, kickbacks. bdbes' etc are conLradi ' ton

in that the! are not consistent $itb the instirut i , 'ns or PrdLtlces the\ presuPpose

Cnticisns of Kartianism. Despite Kant s cont butions to moral philosoPh\" his

rheories hare been criticized as nanolv and inadequate to handle raious problems

in the moral life. He has no Place for moral emorions or sentinents such as

25

26 Erhici l l Th.ir\ in. l Brlsiness Practice

s\rnpathv ancl caring. Ncither does Kant hate rr[Lc]r to \ l lv abr)Lrt rnoral chaft lcterand rirtue other than his contmt:nts , ,n Ljrc m, ,d\ e , , t , ,hl ig.Lri, rt . S, ,rn,- pe()ple alsothir lk Lhar X:t l t ernphasized unir 'er\al obl isadoos iobl igaLions.omnron ro al l peo-ple) at the expensc of part icular obligations (olr l igations that lal1 onlv oo those inpart icrr lar relationships ot rr l to occupv cer_tain r_olcs such as thcrse ot a busincssnenagerl. \ \ ibc|cas rhc obliqation fo keep a protnise is a unirersal obl igation, thc()bligatioD to gaade stuclenLs fairlv falls odlv oD teechcrs r_csponsible lbr sLlbInittinggrades.

Nlanr managerial obl igation-s resuh f iom special roles p1a.ed in brLsi lcss. Forexample. businesspersons tencl to trert cLrst(rnet_s according to the histon of theirlclaLiolship. l f a per-son is a r_egular customer and t l te nteachandise being sold is iushort suppll the r 'egtr lar custonter rr ' i l l be gi 'cn preferenrial Lreatment because a re-l:rt ionship of conrnitment ald trust jras alre:rdv bcen establisltecl..Japirncse businesspractice has corl lerl t iorlal lv cxtended this n{tLion to relati()ns rr, i th srtppliers ancl emplovecs: .{ftcr a trial peliod, rhe regular errDlor,cc has a job for lilc at nanv firrrs.-\lso. the bidding s\stelr is used Less fi-equenti! irr-fapal th.ln in the \\esr. ()Dce asupplier has a histon rvith a f irrr i . rhe l irm is loral to i ts supplier ' . arrcl each Uusts theother not t() e\pl() i t the rclat io[ship.

Horteler. parl icular oblig:rt ions lnd special rclat ionshlps nlal not be lncolsrs-lent l ' ' i th Kantianism. because thcv mal bc lornulable as uni\ersal. For ex:nple.the rule "Qualitv c()ntrol inspectol_s hale special obi igations for customer saletv'can be nade inLo a "unir,ersal ' larr ' for ai l quali tv control insped()rs. -\ l t lpl leh FJlnL$,1ote littlc about such particLll:u duties. hc lr,oitlcl agree Lhal a colnplere explanaLion ol moral agencv in terms ol clun requircs an rccoul] l of rol, Lrni\ ' t-r 'sal and parLicular duties.

-\ related aspect of Xlnt's edtical lheoi'! thar has been scnrtinized bv philosophers is his rie\! that moral motivation involrcs i)rp.o?i.1 prilciples. Implrtial motivation lllav be distinguishecl fionl the moriviltion rhar a person nighr hale fortreadng a lecond person ir a cer[1i]l lrav beceuse thc first p,.-rson has e pat_licrriar in-tercst in the weli-being of the second pcrson (a spousc or qood fr icnd. for exernple).A corventional iDterpretarion of Krnt's work sugts-est-s dtat if conflic$ aise betweenone s obligation and one's other motilations-such as lrie11dsh\). r-ecipruL:JLiun. orlo\e-the motive of obligatiol should ahavs prerail. In lirguing dg.tinsr rhis no[allie\!. critics maintain drat persons are entitled to shor,lfl.oritism io thcir loved ones.This criricism suggess thar IGrrtianism (and utilitari.tnisrn as rvell) has too broadlvcast dre requirement of inlpartialih' atrd does not adequatel'" acco unt tbl those partsof the moral life inrolviig partial, inrimate. ald special relationships.

Special relationships wirh a unique hisror v- are ofren recoilnizecl in business.For irrstance, the Unocal Corporation sharplv cdlicized its priuc\)albank, Securit!Pacil ic Corporatiorr. lbr knowinglv rnaking loirns ol $1,35 mil l ion to a group that in-tended to use the monev to buv shares in Unocal lor a hostile takeover. Fred Hartler'. 6[1i111,1rr and president of Unocal. arguecl thil dre banks aDd tn\.esrnenibankers rvere "plaving both sides of rhe same." Hartlev saicl thar Securin Pacific hadprornised him that i t \aoulcl not f inance slrch takeovel attemp6 three months bc

ELhLr:al Theon an{l Busine\s Pra.t ice

fore doing so erlci that ir had i lctcd Lrnder condit ir l t ts in rvhicl i thc bank fhas] con-

dnlralh leceiled l l i rr the last l( l \earsl conlldcntial t ir tartcial, gt-okrgical, and engi-

neerirg infrrrmarion l l-()nr Ll ie complnr. ' ' . \ f , l ln lcar hisrorl i tr \rhich thc bank

has stockpilcd conlidert iel infrrrmetioD shoulcl uot l i lnPlv bc casl aside tor larger'

!-oi ls. Secufin Pacii ic hncl ! io1atec1 a special rclarionship i t had $ith Urtocal

Nonethelcss. ir lplrtr ial in seeors et somc lelel an i lreplaceeble moaal concePt,

:urcl cLhicel thcon should rccogrrize i ts ccntral i t \ ' l i rr malr bLuir less relal ionshiPs

For exarnple. a major scanclal occurr-ed for somc L .S. b:rnks in 1991 becarrse thel

l ere caught lencl in!_ m one\ Lo bink insiders. Li Then. as iuvesting becam e nlorc Pre-cerious in thc .ar ' lv vears oi the twenn'f irst cenntn. sever^al coupani.s \erc in

rolred in qlrestionable insiclcr krans lo corporale executives. For example at rhe

hcigl.rt of i ts crisis, \ \ irr- ldLlom loanecl then-CEO Bernie EbbeIs $160 lni l l ion for the

plLrpose of his personal 'srock Purchase/ retenlion."

' l he essence of fedcral rulcs

--o!e r ing banks-to the extenl e\pl i . i l nl les e\isl- is rh:rt banks can lcDd nlone\'

to irrsidcrs i l 'ancl orrh i f i trsit lers ar'e rcatcd exa.t l t as outsiders arc trerted. Here

rh,: rrLle of impartial in is an essential nloral constraint. Bv coutrast. 75 pcrcent of

\ncricr 's I500 larl lest corporations madc insider loans str- icth ott the basis ol par-

r ial in r mosl loans rlere rtracle f i)r stocl i pruchases. This part ial io rnassivelr backhrecl

in 101)0-2(l(13, anrl marlr companies had Lo ' forgir.e'of pardon" thc loans:rncl

r:herge olf mil l ions ofclol lars. Loans at Tvco. LLrcent. \ lattel. I l icrosttf t and \\ebvan

bccarnc lanorrs cases, L"

-\gain, t l i roughout rnuch ol 2002. corporale -\neica suffered a serics of busi-

rress scandals. selcra1 of rvhich encied in dre binkruPtcv of cotr lpanies and the crim-

in:r l prosecution of sorne corPorrrc execrrr ires. \ ' iol2ri()ns of the demaDd tbf

impartidin ancl fair-dcaling were t idespread. ln a notorious casc, the rc.nlrnting

l l lrn ol Arthur -\ncLersen hacl strch I closc ancl paft iai rclat ionship \\ ' i th i ts cl ierrr

Elron that rt coulcl not perfoln eu objecrire audir of the f ir 'm. Errron r\ 'as Lreate.l

l i rh a clel 'ererrce. part ial in. ald falorit isrr that contr-asted sharPh \\ ' i th i ts audit ing

of other l irrrs. \ \ ,ho nere treatcd l idr dre convenLional impat-t ial in e]iPectecl oJ an

arLcl i t inq f ir 'nr. . \s a resuiL of this scandal. problents of uldle part ial irv began to l lc

\ ir lelr ci iscrrsseci as problems of conll ict of interest. In an 2ltterlpt at restorlng pub-

l ic conficlence in a Iair and itrrpart ial s\stem, the SecLlr ides and Exchange Comnris

sion ( S[,(,) appr ovecl plans lbl a De\r' olcrsish t slstctlr thal rvas itself in dePendent of

the accountjng inclustrv and therelbre llore likelv to be impartial. Hou'ever'. poJiti-

cal lobbring alrnost irnmecliately taiscd quesrions about the impartial in of the nelv

pJans to assule irrrpartialit\'.In concluding this section oD l(antian ethics. almost no moral PhilosoPher

todar finris Lrnr's svsten lirlh satisfacron'- His clelenders rend to slv onl" rhat Iiant

plovidcs thr: nain elernents of a sound moral posit ion. Bv appeal to these elements,

soIne philosophers hale attemPle.l I ' , .on\trLLcL .t m, ' f l : cLlLonrpassing rheon. Thev

use rhe l iani ian r lot iol l ol respect for Pefsoos, fc.rt example, to Provide aD accotlnt

ofhurran l ights. ( iorrsidelablc controversl Persists rs 1o lt 'hether [ 'anti tn Iheories

erc aclcqualc to this Lask ancl r'hether dtev ha\,e been ntore strccessful than utilitar-

ian thcoiies.

27

E|hical Theo1r i rnd Busi ess Pracdce

Conternporary Challenges to the Dominant Theories

Thus far uLil irari:rD and [antian theories have been examined. Borh rneld a rarien.ol 1lrcral considcraLions info :r s[rprising]r,srstematized frante.work. center-eda.orrnd a single major principle- NILrch is altracti 'e in these rheories. and Lhc'ha\.ebcen the clor.ninant rnodels in ethical rheorr rhroughout mt,ch ,rfth. nrertri.th ."n_tu[v. JD fact. Lhev hale sornetines been presentcd as fhe onh tl.pes o[ ethice] theo_n, as i l thcre tvere no arailable alternatives from rvhich to choose. Horlever rnLrclrreccnr philosophicai *,riting has focrised on defects i' these rhe.rics and .rr *,.avs in$,hich the trfo theories ectu:rlh.affinn a sinlilar conccption of the moral lil.e orienFed arourrd universal principles and ru1es.

. These critics promote akern2ltives to the udritarian and Kantian moclers. Trrev

believe that the conuast behvcen tl.re t\ro t\?es of theon, lro. fr""r., o."r.riirlrr,"Jancl that rhcv do Dor medr lhe atteDrion rhev ha|e reccii.erl aDcl the lott\ pos[ron

l l " - ' n r t " . . , uO ' -n . F , ' r r r 1 ,epx l .11 r -p l . i , eme i r . i L , r . u r penrJp* r rpp lemer r r . rn

t \ J r r r J r - ' rnd u i r i r .u i Jn d lo r ' - ' a r - , r r r i t sh r . r l . -o r i r - r .h i , J r a i - h r . .o o r r ' r r r r r r : rnriBhts); (2) virtue Lhcories (which are based on chamcter rraits): f3) feminisr rheo_ries and the ethics of care (l.hich are dispositior-r_based) : and {-l) comnton Dloralin.theories (rdrich are generalll obligation_j:asedl . These theo.i..

"r" ,frl ," pi., .,i t-Dext lour secfi()ns

_ Each npe oItheon has tr-eated some problems nell ancl has supplied insights

not iound in uti l i tarian and Kanrian theoriis. Although it ma.. ,een js' if the.e is anendless :rrrav of disagreenenls across rrre theories. these rheoaies are not in ari re_spects competitive. ancl in manv tfals fhev are co[lp]ementan. The reader mavprofitablv look Ibr convcrgent insighn in these rheories.

Rights Theories

Terms fronr nroral cliscourse such as r.,a/za, gnl, ancl obligation hate tirus far in thischaprer dominated the discussion. principis and r,1L, i; X"n;, ;i,o.,ur,. ,,,,ocolrlmon mor-aliLv theories have been understood as sfaternellts of obligation. l.etnlanv assertions Lhat will be encountered throuehout this volume are clalms tct haverights, and public policv issues olterr concern r-ights or aftempts to secure nghts.

:tt-il.:l.11:::":r-oversies in prolessionat erh,c,,. busin.ss, J; ;;;1,. policv in_\ n i \ c t l r c . t tEh r \ I n D rupc t n . \ \ u r l . p r i \ J , \ . I he , r l r l _ r e r r r i r onn r_n t . dn . l r hc l t ke . T I r i s\erLrun \ l \ l lo\\ Lhf,r r ights ha\e a dist inctive charactcr in ethical rheorv and vet are' r , nnc , red ro rhe ub l i qa r ion . rh r r ha re p re r i ou .h been examined .

In. rhe n\,enrieth centun.. public ,lis.ussioris about moral prorections tbr per_sons \ulnerable to abuse, enslavement, or neglect have npictrllv been stated ir.rrerms of righrs. tr{:rnv berieve rhar rhese rights iranscend nationai boundaries ancrp.rrhrulrr.g.\crnmenLs. For eumple, there continues to be conLr_orersr over e-<_l r ' r r r 3 r r \ c l db i | , o r rd i t i o r j . i n f r , r , , r i e . . o_ , r l l cd . \ c . r r 5 l r L ,p , ond i r i on , l r hJ mar ru_racture proclucts for Nike, Reebok, Abercronrbie and Fitch, Target, Gap, .f.C.Penner'. Liz Claiborne, L. L. Bean. and manv otn". .oIrrp"rri".. it

"'i.,rlao-"rr,ul

Erhical l heorr i tnd Rrlsines\ Pra.t ice

issue is rhr: hunran rights of hrtnclrcds of thousilnds of Iorkers around rhe globe.

LdcLer discussion are the riqhrs of tr 'orkcr-. ro appropriarc \\ 'olking condit ioDs. I

cocle ol concluct for the inclustr i ; open-facLon inspections, nel, monitoring srstcnls

reductiolt of the i l l i terac!.rate dnlol lg \\()rker's. aDd collccrire bargaiLring agt rt-

nents.r; ln addir ion. acdvists hare urged thai Arnerican conlpanics not do business

in courrtr ies that halc a record oI exLensire \ io]ation of l lunall r ights. China. Nige-

ria. and X{vanmar have a1l comc uuder sclcre cri t icism (These issucs. ; lnd others

sLrlroundilg violations of hrrman rights in srr_car-shop!j. ale discLrssed in Chapter .c);

see also the \ i ike case. ser in Vietnaln, in Chapter 10 1

L'nl ike legal r- ights. htLnan r- ights are held independelrr lv of mcnbelship in a

slare or other social organizatioD. Historical lr ' . humarl r ights et)hed from the no_

tion of natural righrs. As formulared bv Locke ancl othcrs in ear_lv nrodetn philoso-

pll', natural lights are claius that individrtals hale:rgainsr rhe state l{ dre state does

rlot honor-these righ$. i ts lcgit inlacv is in qlrestion Naluml r ights were th.rught to

consist pl imari lv ofr ighrs ro be l iec ol interference, or l i l lertv r ights Proclamatiol ls(rf ghts to l i fe, l ibern, propern. a speedv t l ial. and t1-re pLrrsuit ofhappiness subse-

qLrcnth folmed thc core of major-\\ tstern Poli t ical and legal doculnents Thesc

rights came to be unclerstood as Powerfi l l assert iol ls demallcl ing resPect and status.

A number of iof luential phi losophcrs hale mainuinecl dlat cthical theoln or

sone part of i t must be 'r ights b:rsed. '15 The| scek to ground ethical theon i l L a r l ac-

count of r ights that is not |educible to a theon of obligal ions or l ir tLres Clonsider a

rl-reon to be discussed in Chapter I l) t lraL takes l ibcrt\ r ighrs to be basic One repre-

sen ta t i r co f i h i s theon .Rober tNoz ick , re fe rs toh i ssoc ia lph i l osophvasan ' cn t i dc -meDL rheor'! . ' The appropriateness of t iuL descript ion is apparent f.om rhis

pro\ocad!e l ine $,i th which his book begirrs: lndi l icluals have riqhrs. anrl therc are

rhings no persoll ol group mav do to them irt irhour violatirtg their r ights). Start ing

from this assumprion. \ozick builds a poli t ical t ireon in l 'hictr sovenlrrrelr i . tLLiL,r l

isjusti f iet l onlv i f i t protects the l irndamental r- ights ofi ts cit izens.

This poli t ical thcorr is also an ethical rheorr. Nozick takcs the fol lorving noral

rule to be bmic: -\ll persons have a right to be left free lo do as thr:v choose The

moral obligation not to interlere r- i th e person fol lons from this r ishr That the

obligation follozar frol-Ir the right is a clcar indication ol the priori$ of rights over

obligations; that is. in tlis theon' the obligation is clerivecl liom the .iFiht. not

the r:rther rval around.Rights-baser.l theories holcl that rights form the iustiiling basis of obligations

bccarrse they l-rest express the purpose of moralin, w-hich is dre securing ofl ibert ies

or other benehts for a rightiolderre Ho elcr, few rights-based theories den) rhe

importance of obligations (or duties), rvhich thev regard as central to moralifriThev make this point b1'holding that there is a cor-r-elativitv benreen obligations;rr i l r i l ,hr\r 'Xhis e r i ! ,hr r,r do,rr to h:rve f" neans thal the moral svste of r_ules(or the legal system, i f appfopiate) imposes an obli l i r l t ion on someone to act or to

refrain from acting so Lliat X is enabled to do or hale l'.!LrTlrese oblig;ations are of nro t)?es: .\i?galir ohligations re those that reqllire

Lhat we nor interfere with rhe l ibertv of otheIs (thus securing l ibert.t r ighls): pos;t iu.

Dl)Li l lat ian.s require that certain people ()r insti luLions provide bencli ts (,r seniLe\

--

30 t rh , ' l | , , u r r . , lB . r . r . c . ) P rJ . r . L r

(thl$ securing benel-rL r ights of welf lrc r ightst.rr ( irneleri.cl\ . . :1 ,zl3ztir. /7-d?1 is aral icl claim to l jberh. rhar is. r l r ighr n{tt ro bc ir iLerfered \! i t}r. encl e p,.Ji lr i f ngrl is aral id clain on goods or ser-r ' ices. The riglt ts rr()r to be beatirn. subjecte(l fo Llnrlenaed surger\,. or sold inro slalcn lue e\al] lples of neqati\e or l iberrv r. iehts. Rights Lolbod. mcdic:r l care. and insLLnrnce are exemples of posit ive or bencfit r ights.

T\c r'rghr ro \lbern ls )rcre sarcl to be ..negatilc., be(:ause no o[e hes to uct ro

honor i t ; pr-esumabh. al l dtat l l lust be clone is to iealc peopie alonc. l .he same rs noLtaue regarding posit ivc r. ights: in rtr.der to honor rhese righLs, someonc [as ro pl_o_\icle sorrlethinq. For examplc. i f a star." ing person has a Lrrmarr r ight to w.el l_bein3_.soneone ha.s an oblie'adod to pr.oride Lhlf peri!.)n lr.ith f;od. ,1r has olien bcenpolnteai oul. posit ive r ights place an obligation to provicie sorneLhine to others, \ \ .hocan responci that Lhis reqLtirenent interferes rr iLir thcir propern r- ig]rts t() rrsc theirresources lbr their chosen elds. The disrincion bcnr,een posit ire and negativer-ishs has ofien lecl those rvho l,ould incirrrlc larious rights tir wcll_treing (ro loocl.holrsing, heahh care. erc.) on rhc l ist of hurnan rights to :trgue rhat r ire oblisarionto provide lbr posir ive r ighrs fal ls on rhe polir ic: i l state. This r l ist incriorr hes intuit i lcappeal to manv businesspersons. because rhe\ wish to l imir borh the responsibi l i t iesof their l i rms ancl the number of r jgl. i ts confl icts dte, must acldress.

-\tonllicr inr.olving nesative righrs is illustrated bv thc clebarc sLlr.rolrndins ar_rempts 1t '" enplover-s ro control the l i fcsole of lheir e ntplovees. Sorle emploler.s wilJnot accept emplovees lr ' l io suroke. Some Ii l l not pcrmit emplolecs to errg:1ge 1ndangelous activities such as skvdi\.ing. auro racing, or mounrain clirnbing. Bv nrak_ing these rules. one can argue dtal emplo\ers are \ioladns fie liber.t\ righ ts of rheenplorees as \\rel i as dte entplovees right ro prir,acr. On rhe other hand. Lhe cmi:) iover can argLle that he or she h:ts a r ight ro run the busil less as l ie or she secs 1lt.Thus, both sides invoke nesaLive rights to r lake a moral case.

. Theories ofmoral r ights have not tradit iotalh.been a r lajor.focus ol.business

ethics. but rhis siruation is changing at preselr. Fot.er.ample, lrnplo..ees rracl ir ion_allv could be i ired for tvl.rar superiors considered dislovel con,: luci. ancl enrplo\eeshar'e had no right to bio$, ' the l t isr l t , ,n rotporrlc tnjsrorrr lrL.r. \ \ l ten ntember-sof minorit \ , groups conplain about discrini inatorv hir. iug pracrices thar \ iolare Lheir.hnmar dignitv and self,respect. oDe plausibie interpretation of these conrplairrts isthat drose l,ho register rhent beliere rhar fheir moriLl r ights are being ,r i tr insed.Current rheories of empiovee, consunrerj ancl stockholdei righrs all proride frame_wo.ks for debates about rights rvirhin business ethics.

. The langrLage of moral r ights is gr-eeted bv sone tr i th skepricism because of

the apparentlv absurd proliferatiou of rish$ and rhe conliict am;ng diverse claimsto nghts (especial lv in recent polir ical debatesJ. For exarnple, sorne parl ies claimthaf a pregnant l\,oDran has a fight to have an abortion, rvhere:rs others claim thatlctrtses have a risht Lo life that prechrcles rhe fighr to have an aborrion. As I,e shallsee throughout this volllme, rights lang[ag-e has been ettenclecl to inclucle suchcontro\.ersial rights xs thc risht to finarrcial pri|acr.. righLs oflrorkers to obtaill \.1rri_ous lorms of information abo[r their emplorer., the right to l{,or.k in a poil[tion freeenuronneni, |he r ight ro hold ajob, and rhe r- ight to healrh car.e.

_ llany {dters i[ ethics nolr agree thal a pe$on can ]egitimatelv exercise a

right to something onlv if sufficienr jtutiijc:rtion exists_that is. $he n a i ight has an

Erhical Theon and Brtsiness Pra(t ice

orer-r iding stalus. Righ$ strch as a r igl i l to eqrial economic oppormnin a r ight to

alo l\,ith one s ProPert\ rls onc tishes. and a right to bc sa\ed lrom starvadolt m:rv

bale to comPele \\'iLh other lighrs. The fact that fights theorists have failcd to pro

riclc l hicrarchv fbr r igh$ cleinis tnav indicate that r ights. l ike r lbl igations' are nor

absolute moral demands. but rarher'ol l t ls that can be oven_idden in part icrr lar cit_-

cumst:rr ices br mor_e str ingent cornpeLil lg noml claims.

virtue Ethics

LJur discussion of utilitarian, Iianrian, and rights-bascd theories has looked chiellv

ar oblig:rr ions and rights. These theodes do not hPicalh'enphasize the agents or

actors $rho perfbr-m actions, hare notives, and lbl lon principles. ! 'et peoPle com-

monh' make judgments about good and eril Persons, their traits of character' and

their rvilli gness to perform actions- In recent lears, several philosophers have plo-

posed that cthics should redirect irs preoccupalion Nith Principles of obligation. di

iective rules, ?ud.jtdgmenLs of r ight and \{rong and should look to decision

making b-v persons of good character. that is, \'irtuous persons.

l'irl1u rthi.s descends from the classical Hellenistic tndition represerlted bt

Pleto arrd .\t istotlc, in rlhich the cultilation of a virttlous char-acter is \'ielved as

nioral in s priman lunctjon. Alistotle held that \ ir tue is neither a leel ing nol an in-

iaLe capacin. but a disposition bred from an innate c:rpacin' properlv trainetl ancl

crercised. Pcople acquire virtr.res much as theY do skills such as carpentrr', Plaving a

musical instmment. or cooking. Thev becomejusr bt performingiust a'r ions and

becolle temper_:lte br performing tenPerale acti()ns \rirmous chamcte r. says r\iis

r.rtle. is neither natrual rtor unnatural: it is cLLltivared and made a Part oI rhe indi-

ridual. mtrch like a language or tradition.But an ethics of \irtue is more than hallitual training This approach relies

even nlore than does liant's rheor| on the imPortance of haring a correct

nlatitlationl slruct1r.. -\jusr person, for ex21mple, has not onh a pslchological dispo-

sir i(n to act lair l l but also a moralh appropriate desire to actjusth The person

characterisLicallv has a rnoral conceln and resenttion about acting in a \l'al that

lould be unfair Har,ing onh Lhe motive to act in accorda[ce uith a rule of obliga-

tion, as l(ant demands. is not moralh sufficient for lirtue. lmagine a Kantian uho al-

\{avs perfo.ms his or-her obligation because it is an obligation but r lho intenseh

dislikes heving to alloN the interesrs of others lo be taken into account Such a per-

son cloes not cherish. 1'eel coDgenial toward. or think fondlv ofotheN. and this percon

respects others onlv because obligation requires i t . This person can, nonerheless, on

a theor'l ofmoral obligation such as Iiant's or llill's, Perlbrn a morall,Y .ight action.

have an ingrained disposition lo perform that action, and act with obligation as the

for-emost morive. The l ir tue theorist 's cri t icism is chat i l the desire is noI r ight, J nec-

essary contlition of\irtue is lackintClonsicler an t"ncounter ]\idr a tire salesPerson. You lcll the salesPerson that

safcw is most importanl and thal \ou Nant lo be sure to get an al l-wearher f ire He

listens careful lv and then sells vou exacrlv $hat vou trnt, because he has been rvel l

trainecl bv his manager ro see his priman obligation as that of meeting the cus-

toDler's needs. Acting in this war'has been deeplv ingrained in this salesPerso[ bv

3 l

Ethicai Thcon arrrt Business pracrict

l lrs nl i inagcr's tmining. There is no more tvpical encounLer in the lorld ol.retai l. .rLcs r lLJn,rhjs unc..Ho\\c\Er. \ulrpose nolr dlet \re go behincj rhe salesperson,s be_1L:[ lur ro Lis undeL]ri [g morrrcs ]nd desires reveals. \{e f in. l that this tnan cletestshisjob- and hates ha\, i l lg to spend t ime ivith eren customer $,ho comes lhr-ough l iredoor'. He rloes not care about beine ol sefl ice io p.opl. ,rr creating a bctter enri_rol lnenr in thc oIf ice. _\ i1 he reallr r, .arl ts is to t latch the teierision sei in r1le \rartrDglorrnse and to pick up his par.check. _Although this man trteem tr is nroral obl igri_t ions. somerhing in his characLer is rnor-alh del.ccLive.

. l \ :hen people engag-c in business or rakejobs simph..for the profi t or.wases

thal wii l resulr. drcr.mal neer thcir.obl igations arrcl r. t i t ,r t be eigaged irr theirwork rn a moralh appropri: l te lnanner. C)n the ofher hand. i f p-ersons stirrt ablLsiness because thel bel ieve in a quali tv prodLlct_a nerr,, l . iealthie, \ogurt. r.rrexample-and cleeplv desire to sei l thar prodlrct. their.character is nrore i runewith our moral etpectaLions. Entrepreneurs oltelt exhibit this enthusiasni andcomnrtnrent. For.example. \, I icrosoft and,{pple Cjomputer emplovees rver.e. lbr]nlnl

years. genuinely excited about bringi le new products ,o -r ik", rn Lire be_lief that. rhc\ grearh. inprovcd the qualin. of l i i .e. The pracrice of busint_ss ismolal lv better i f ir is sustained bv persons w.hose character marrifesrs._ntltusia:tr l .rruthfulncss. juit ice, compassion, respect.tulness. and patience.

. Inreresting discussions in l tusi less ethics norv a"rr,aa o,, the rpproprlale

\irtues olnl:inagers. emplovees. ancL o ther- participan rs in business actint1.. as I,iil beseerl ulanr dmes in this book. AmoDg the \iatues that ha\.e recei|ed discusstun . cintegrin', courage. and compassioD. Hotver er, some alleged ,,r.irt.es,,

of business lifehave been sharpr,v contested in recenr vears: a'd larious of these .,\ . i . t l res. of tr lebusinessperson have seemed not to be /roral \irtlles. Cc,mpetirivcness ana toughness are t\!o examples. ,fibrlzrzr has long oublished e list of the roughesr bosses. For_maln years belore he rlas fired as CEO of Sunbean. _\1 Dunlap ivris Derennralh. onthe l isr. He had ear.ned the nickr:rne .Chainsal,. \ i , .

fcrr his piop",, in. to t, ." p.o_ple and shut doln plants even rr,hen rhe\,\\,ere Inarginailr pr.ollrlbl.. 6.,ntap nad.stock_pdce and prolirabilitr Lhe onlv lrordlv goa)s of a lusiness enterpr-ise. NlantwoLlld argue that i l l his case business toughnes-s nas :r moral Vice. This exarnple sug_qests that some business !irtues are subject to cl.itic:tl mol.al scrutin\,.

There is another reason.rvh.r r i i rue ethits ma\ be jmp,rrrtnr for businessethlcs. A morall_v good person !1,ith rhe right desires or motilations is mo.e likeh, roundersland w'hat should be done, more likelv to be motivated to per_tb.r" .;;;;.Jacts, anrl more likelv Lo form and acr on noral ideals than u,ould i morallv bai per_son. A person tvho is ordinarily trusted is one ullo has an ingrained motlvaLion ancldesire to perform righr acrions and who characte sticallv Jares about morallv ap_Propiate_ responses. A person who simpl,v follows rules ofobiigation anrl i\,ho other_wise exhibis no special noral character mav not be rrustr!-o;h1... It is not the r_ulelu l l n r ' . r . b r r rhep r r . r , r r r l . r p6v r i L r . t t r r , ! , t , t . o be q .ne r , , u \ . ( J r i nq . , ompJ , . ron_:lte, svmpathetic, and fair rvho shoulcl be tirc one recimmendecl. atlririred, praised.and ireld up as a llloral model. llanl experienced businesspersons sav that suchtrust rs the moral cement ofthe business rvorld.

Ethical Theon and BLrsin€ss Pracl ice

Feminist Ethics and the Ethics of Care

Related to virtue ethjcs in some resPe(rts is a boch of moral reflection that has come

to be knoun as the "ethics of care This rheorr derelops some of the themes Iound

in virtue ethics abolrl the centraliN of characte' but le ethics of care lo' lrses on

a set of character traits that alg (laeplr rrlucd in cl.re P"rs"Lrrl rclaticrnshiPs-

,u-o",ttt. compassion. ltcleiiw' lo\'e' hlicn'lship, :rnd tht lile \'dLeablv ,rbsent are

,J..r,.ri'-.t"i t.les and impartiai utilitarian calcuiiltions such as those espousecl

bv li,rnt and Nlill

Feruinist Found.ltions. lhe ethics ofcare has gfolD out ofthe eloqu-nr rrc,rk.,f

a sroup of rreenr philusophcrs Lhat has contributed lo or is in' lebted i() feminist

i ir]or' ' . ' r"-i,r ir,-tt i is a tc,nr rt ir l, several nuances of rleaning; ir incorpomtes ir dl

.;;;;t*,p of female-centered reflections on moral theorv and Practice that ar'rg-

-.n,i, . i .ort."ivc convendonal nPes of moral theon leminist approaches to

ethics rviil here be understood in ttrms of th'ee norlnati\e tenels: First' the subor-

dinarioD, inequalitr ' . or oppresslol of\romen is wrong; is sources shoulrl be identi-

fied art,l remedied. S.coir,1' l,orrlen dtset'le equal polirical and legal right's Third

ih. "*p"ri"rt.".

and persPectives of \rtmen aie T ''ortltv of rcspect and should be

taken serioush. .{lthoirgh these tenes mav seem entirelr nonco troversial' feni-

nirr. o.n.t" that if thel ivere acterl upon, the theon aud Practice of elhics in busi-

ness. and throughout sociefi'. $oLrld be rudicalh'tra slonnecl -Fenrinist scholars are committed to pinPointing and excising forms ol oppres-

sion a d to refbrmulatinEi ethical theorv in a_manner that does not subordinate the

inleresN of rr,ornen' There are differenr urrclcrsrandings anrong l.enrinists of the

,o.,r a"r of oppaa,taion and about ho!t best to acldress alld remed! ir' These differenr

.rrr.t..,t"t-tai"tg, natlualh result in different hpes or c:rteilorics of 'feminlsm The

issues ate couiplex, ancl feminists rake diflerent perspectires on. malters such as

eclualin', divelsin. imPartialin, comnunit\" aulononl\" :rnd the objecritin ol mor:rl

knouledge.Norlretheless, several central componenls of ferninist ethical thinking mav be

delineated. Feminist philosophers point out thal rationalitf in modern ethicel

theor\', in particular in Ihnti in and uti l i tari:rn theories' has most otten been un-

derstoocl in lerms of the formrtlation and inPartiai apPlication of universallv

bincling morai principles. N1anv teminist philosophers [o\{ argue thet univelsal

p.i.r.ipi", are inadequate guides to action and tha! absract fbrmulations of hr'-

potheiical moral situations separate moral agenrs f 'rom the particuiarit ies ol rheir

individual lives and inappropii"t.lu ,"pututt "toral Problems from social and his-

torical f.rcts. Further, th.u h"u" ..iti.i,"d the autonomous unihed rational be-

ings that npifv both the I{antian and the uti l i tarian concePtion of the rnoral self '

!-"ir.ri,r i.t pit i lorophers generalh agree that l(antian and.uti l i tarian imPartialit!

fails tc, recognize the mor:rl imporiance of valuing the rvell-being of another ior

her or his own sake. Furthermore, thev point otrt that a]though iriPartia]it lhas

hisroricalll been associated rlith respect lbl the individual' imPartialirv can

Ethical Theon and Busincss Prrct ice

undernrjnc this \erv respect because it trears indi! iduals impersonallr, as anon\L

molrs arILl ir i tcrchangcablc rnoral egents r l i thout dist inctive r leccls and lbi l i t ies Tn

adtl i t ion. irrrparrial moral er 'aluations often pa\e over importatl t r l i lTcr-en, cs irr . ,-

cial, pol i t ical. and econornic po\\ 'er that are clucial Lo assessirrg lhe morallv cor_

rect courlc of action in part icular srtuatrorrs,For erample. a stetist ical eraluadort indicaring that:)0 percent ol a !elecom-

murric:rdon conpanrrs wor'klbrce consists of women wottld suggest that the coirPa-

nl is moralll prajsel,''orth\. in this respect. Holrercr. a different assessment ma! be

appropriate i f 90 percedl of lhe {-oi lel l are emploled as telePhone oPcrators and

cler_ical stal l . Sini larlr, in elaluating a \,vaste disposal comPanv s comPetit ive con-

tract bid, feminist phi losophcrs $,ould urge Irranagenertl to look bevond the bot-

torn l ine i f , Ior example.80 percent ol the cornpantis to\ ic \rastc disposal sites ar_e

Lrcatcd in poor, rninoritv Deighborhoods.

The Voice ofCare. Femilrist philosophers hirve pointc(l out that traditiona] the-

o1-ies present a concepti()n {)f nror-ali$ that 1ea!es little rooln for virllres such as em-

path\. compassion, f idcl in, love. and fr icndship. A1r understiuding of the conlcxto1 :r siLuation is part icularlv impor_rant thcn taking int() accoLrnl dre dlst jnctire'voice'thi l t iD 1\ ' psvchologisls. phi losophers, end nlarlagcment rheo sts ha\e as-sociated 1{ith $,omen. This distinctive rnoral stance \!as articulated in:r particular'h

inflrrential nrnner bv psvchologist Carol Gilligan in her inll.te:rti:alwork In a Differ

ent \ oict:.22 The voice is one of car_e rnd conpassion, anci aithortgh trtost leninist

seholars do not associate this loice or penpectirc lr,ith rtomcn exclusiveh. thevrrgue that i t does represent : ln important conLr'ast to the \oice of r ights andjusticethar Ciilligan associaled 1!ith men.

This distilct norai perspectil€ is charactelized bl a concern r!ith reladonships-especialll r_csponsivencss to the parlicular needs of odrers-and lrr r cr.,Illrrit-ment Lo others' \rrel l-being. fhe ideas Gil l igan ad\'anced on the basis ofheI pslcho|rgical snrdies have been devclopecl lrv those tho f ind thc same dil fercnr r. irr irrcontemporan philosoph\: Contractaian models of ethics. t i th their emph:1sis onjustice ancl r ights. are f irmlv rejected becanse thev omlt intcgral vi l tues ancl Place apaerDiurn on autonina \ chaiu atnoDg /"1aDd eqlnlage]nts. Hcrc t]re ethics of careoffers a fundamental rethinking of the noral universe: The terms of social coopr:ration. especial i ! in famil ies and in communal decision making, are ttnchosert, inl i-,ldll. aDd aurong lnaqrals. The conrractarial model lails ro appreciate that parenl-sand serl ice-orienLed proltssionals, fbr example, do not perceive rheir tesponsibi l i-t ies to theia chi ldre and customcrs in terms of contracts or universal r 'ules but seethem rather in terms of cale. needs, and iong rcr-m attachment. Onl! i f evcn fbr_mof human relation vere modeled on an exchange could these f<rrms of caring be reducecl to contract or moral larv.:5

There are additional reasons for rhinking that a molalit,v centered on virtuesof c:rrc and conccrn cannot be squeezed into a morali t l of rules. Their franlclvorksare funclamentallv dissimilar Human rvarmrh, friendliness, and rrust in respondingto other-s cannot be brouglrt under rules of bebaYior For exarnple. although alarner niav follorv all the rules ot good legal pracrice in attencling to dre affairs of a

ILhn al Theon ind Busil less Pm.tiLe 35

ball l fupr bu\i l lesspel 'son. thc la\a er st i l l does nor cl isplar thr: scnsit ivirr i l l . l \ \ 'arnlt l l

dt i l t this hear-tsick Pcrson lteedsi \ct sLrch \ i l t l res of i good Larrrer lrar he rlre ]nosf

i l l lportxnt Plr l of l l re enaarl l l lLcrFerni ir isL Lhcories olfer n grei l l r- lcal to a retlectire Persorl inlcresre(l in l l l1si

n.ss ethics. \ \e sratlcl to lerrt l ho\! bLrsiness r 'elat ionships r l l ight be rcslnr' IrLre' i ro

rel l t-ct the neecls end welfarc of al l sLl lkeholdcfs. l l lsIcacl rt f l ierr i lg rclrt iolrships in

the brrsiness \or-1cl as l i lDdantclttalh comPetiLife- lnrfkel-oficnted. irnd corl l laanlal.

busirre:s pclsorts can nrore r-ercl ih apPtc.iate Lhii t Ini l l \ rehtiol l"hiPs i lru c()oPera

ri\ 'c, possiblr clel natcfnalist ir ( l tclr: a replecemellr \vor' l lor "Pil terl l l l l ist ic ' I For

eraniplc. ir t Chaprer 7. 1\ 'e consicler u'helher' those involr 'ecl in ra/r i rnighr recon-

ceile their IespoLrsibi l ides along these l ines Agairr ' cotlsider-: l maliager rvho i! : I t

teDpting to irnplcment a milndator' \ drrrg tesring pr'ograni Shc [r i l ihl come to an

inp:rssc end restr l lcture her_ epproach then shc f inds that cmPlorers elnplo\ 'ees'

"u,l , , . ,r, ,r*.r. havc lcgit irnate concelns atld sensit i l i t ies ebout lhe Prol ir i lm l len\-

lerninisrs arrl man.lgerlent cxperts toulr i Llrgc dle manaqelt{) helP cmPl()\ees to

letl Loncanr 1or-the cu-storlrer-s l \ .hi le also srrir i t lg tLr make the lrorkPlace cxpcn-

(rrar orla i l l \hich thc 1\orker is lcss al ienatt--d and hellcc lcss l i lelr to take dmgs

Frrrplrree; can irr Lhis 1\,a\ f i) trre to fecl thaL lh{rv can rrusl lhcir rnanagers arid tran_

rgers rr ighl more readilv l isten and rcsPoncl lo their cmPlovccs

This rnorai theor has dre Potential to tr istbnl business practice lo e\hibit nrore

of rire characterisrics ofa mor-el commLlllinl TlaclitioDal nletaphors fol busintss pra t ticc

irre oflerl dn\\n liorn cornperitilc are :isl thel ar'e \\'ar ori(inted and sPo s oricnted'

Fam ilt' n-renphors seen out of place. a.s docs the languaqc ()f cooPcntion and fi)mPas-

sion. \-et such langlrage is undeniablr central to morllljn; and if sonre contclnPorar\

m:lDagement theorists are correcl. slrch languagc is cenlral lo sr.lccess iD brrsiness as

\rcll. Cloopenlion emone ntarlagen alrd elnPlolers is no less ilrPorLlllt lbr sr r"ess then

pr'ochcr qualinr -\1so. thc business torld is still s!ructltred in \\'ars rhat make ir more dif

li.ult lirr rromeu to pursLle Lheir cereer on a lerel plaring [le]d xilh men-o' e\cn i{r

purstLc lemill ancl career at all. Suppoltive policies of libetal ofticc liours :rrail;blc

It'are: of abserrce. chilcl<:rre f:rcilities. and sLmtcgies lo Pre\'ent sexlral harasslrrelL cell

bc championecl indepcndent of l'eminist ethics or the erhics of.are. bul thcse ethicill

lheories ha\e urken thc lead in promorillg such lonns o1' resLructuriDg in iniliutiL']is

This aspccr ofbusiness has tredir ionallv been igJlorcd as sofi arrd less impor-

tnnt Lhan a st long botrom l ine. There ere signs. hor" 'crter" rhlt busi less rt i ] l in the f ir

nlrc be lr]orc open to the contributiol ls of lhc eti l ics of care, resuldng in an

improvement in both corporetc morali t l and corpolale Producdvit\ ' .

Common Morality Theories

Finallr ' , man' philosophers clettrrci the r ierr that therc is a common moraii t l that al l

p.:opie share br r jrruc of coml]Lrnal l i fe aDd thdL this rDofal in is ul l inleteh the

soLLrce o{ al l theories of mora}in. -\ccorcl ing to rhis i lPProach. r irt tal l l al l PeoPle in

al l cultules gror! uP 1!i th an unclerstancLing of rhe l lasic denlands of morali t \" lLs

norms are famil iar and unobjecrionable to t l lose ()rnmitted Lo a mt>r; l l i fe Thev

-

36 f l r i , r l l l e , . ' . . , , . B , . i r , . . P , . , , 1 r , ,

know rlot to l ic. not tut steal. to kecp ptomises. to honor the rigit ls ofothers. not tokill or canse irar-nr to i.nocent pe'sons. ancl Lhe rike. rhe coninon nararitt ls sirrLph.the set ot norms sharcd b\ ' el l persons seriouslv commiLted to the objecrir.es ofnoral i t l . This l lroral in is nol [1elcl\ /z nruL.rl in rhrL dttteLs trom uli tz moial i t ies.ra Itis applicable to el l persons 1n ai l pLaces. ancl nl i hunan conducL is r ightlr. ir tdged bviLs srandarcls. The fbl lowrns are c\ lrnl l les of tdrddr. lr of a,:t ion 61iei ofobligationiin the contnton noral i tr ' : l . " l lon L ki i i : 2. 'Dorr 'r cause pain or sufftr ins to others,,;3. - 'PIcvenL eri l or har-nt fron occur-dng : anrL -1. . ,Tell lhe truth..,There are alsonranv exanrples of moral (hairattr treits (virtucs) recognizecl in the common morali_n. including: (1) noDmalerolence: i2) honest\.; f3) integrit t . ; ancl (4) conscien_tiousness. Thesc \,irtues seen to bc universallv ad[rired traits of character and aperson is regarded as dcficient in rnor r l , h.r errcr i f he or rhe hcls such lraits.

Thc thesis thar there are uni\ersal moral standards is rooted in (1) a theon ofthe objecri les of the soci:r l insdnrt iol of lnorai i t l and (!) an hrpothesis about thcsorts ol norms that are requircd ro achic\:e those objectives. philosophers such asThomas Hobbes and Dalid Hume have poinrecl out Lhat cenLuries of e.perierrcedel] lonstrate lhat thc humaD condit ion Lends |o deteriorate inro nriser.r., conrusron,I iolencc. and distnrst unless norms such as rhose l isted earl ier_the norms ol thecornmon mot'alin:-are obselved. These Dorms preveDt or minimize the threat ofrhis deterioration. It u'oulr l be an o\erstatement to main|ain Lhat these nonns arenecesszrn for rhe rur-riral of a socien, las larious philosophers and social scienristshave maintained::). but i t is n.t too mach to craim that rhese nomrs ar c rrecessar.o.to ameli)rat? ar.ountpr.ltt thr t?nde,.i Jat tht quaLity olpeafte's liTre touorsen ot.Jat ln,ntrclationshtft to tliintegnt,:.26 hr e\:er\ (e1l-fitnctioning socien nonns are in phce toprohibit lr ' ing. breaking promiscs. causing bodih hirm, stealing, fraucl. the takingof l i l 'e. the neglect of chi ldren. fai lures to keep contracts, ancl so iorth. These normsare $.hat thev tre. and l lof some other set of norms, because thev have paoven thatther' successful lv achier,e the objectires of r loral in. This succesi in rhe senice ofhunran flourishing accounts lbr tireir moral authoritl., and Lhere is no more basicexplanation of or justificarion tbr- rheir moral authorinr Thus, there is nopltilov4thiral ethrca]l Tlteon dizir nkes f r ior irr orer rhe cor Umon moralin; indeed, allp l r t l , ^ , p l r i , r l r l r , u r i e . t . n , I r hc i r g rn r rnd i r r q i 1 r h - co r1mo1 n lo rd l i n .

These theoties do not assLlmc t ir.rt e\ en prlson rccepts thc nol ms in the com_mo-n ulorlr l in. I t rvould be implausible to maintain that al l persons in al l societies doin fact accept moral nonns. Unanimif i is not the issue. \, ianv amoral. rmmoral. orce l re t i r e l r mn- r l p - r .on r t l n nu t , J r r JL ,uL , o r i den r in \ i r h , , . j r i ous dem. rnd . o l t hecomlnon noral iLl. Some persons ar-e l tr,r lalh \.eel; others are I l toralh depraved. Itrvould also be implausible ro hold that a .tslrmdj.l set of norms or a ar.nrras&r set otnorms in a sociefi quali f ies. as such, for inc]usion in r l te tatnman molJhw. l .he no-t ion that moral justi l ication is ult imatelv grouncled in the cusroms and consensusagrecments of particular groups is a ntoral travesn. Anv gir.en societv,s cuseomary orconsensus posiLion ma\ bc a distortccl outltxrk rhat functions to block arvirreness otcommon-moralih. rcquirements. Some societies are in rhe inf luenrial grip of lead_ers who prornote rel i l ious zealoo-ies or-poli t ical ideologies that deparfpiofoundlyfrom the cornnon moralitr,.

Erhicel Theon ancl BL$iness Pmci ice

Frou the perspectir 'c of those t 'ho emphasize the conmon morali t l" onlv unr-

rcr'sallv lallcl lc,rrns t'arrant LLs in nlakinll interculturai and cross-cultural judg-

,u"D,. ubo.r, mot-al dcpravitr. morall! misguided beliefs savage crueln' and other

Inora] faillrres. If $'e did not lra\.e l.".o...,. .o urrir.eLsal norrr]s, lve cou]cl rrot make

1,,l..i. dir ti, ,.,i,r r't. b"F\'ecn rrloral and itnrnoral behar'ior and therefole corrld not be

oos i t i o r rec l t oc ] . i | l c ] zee \ ' enou | ] . ageo l r shu rnanac | i ons .son reo l r t ] r i ch ,1 l cd l cm-i-.f . . . f .o.fr i- .a l" rhe lame of irorai in' This rales us lo the subject of Part icul:u

nloral i t ies.\Ianr'.justifiable ntoral norr-rts are Particuiar to cultures' grouPs' arld er-en in

dirid.uals. iire common rnoralin contains onlv general moral staudards Ils nornls

are abstmct. Li1l i1ersal. and content thin- ParLicuiar morali t ies tend lo be the re-

\erse: concrele. rtonuniletsal. and coll tent r ich These morali t ies mar cont' t ir l

norms thaL arc olten comPrehcnsive and detai led Business ethics and indeed al l

prrt."sirnal .thi.". lrr. erampiet of particular_ moralities \lanv examples are frlr'rnd

i".".f"t . t pr,, t 'csrionrl Prrct iLc insti tut ional codes of ethics' and rhe l ike Al-

thoogh rlr"i.'r.,1". .re likeiv to be unique !o sonre clomain ofbusiness' thevuill gen-

.r" l t i ' r"q., i ." lbr thelr justi i ication ;c norms in Lhe commott nioral io--. such as

nrlt ' i , , f iruthful cl isclosrire. mles proLecting persons ftom ha|n- ancl rLrles aBainst

.(mll icL ol inLerest\ lanl mlcs hale been fashionecl ro help control pardcular Probltrns in Prr-

r icl l lar cnrironments For example, some i l lst i tut ions nol\: ha\e elaborate r l l les

.rnd molitoring srs,"rt-t , t , , aorrt.ol pat,blems of sexual harassment Thcir rules are

npi,:elh dcsignej lbl a part icular iet of problems in a specil ic locadon or indus-

,. i . S.,.h.,, ,1.,t migft be counterproclult i t 'e, unnecessar!, or even l lrdicrous in

other localions.Business ethics is luntlamenrallv an ettempt to make the noial iife specitic

and practical. The reason lr 'h! the nonns o[ business ethics in part icul 'r clr l tLlrcs

o l i end i f f e r | ron r thoseo fano |he rcu l tu re i s tha t theabs tnc ts ta r t rngPo l r l t s l n t i l ecomrlon moraliw can be coherentlv applied in a Iariel l of r-ars t() creaLe norms

that take the form of specilic guidelines, institutional and public policies' and coti

f l icr re!olutions. Lni\ersal norms are simph not approPriate instrumenrs to deter

mine prlctice or Poiicv or to resolve conllicls unless thev are rrlade sulficientlv

specil-r'c t,, tak. accoLlnt of financial constraints, social efficiencl' cultural piuralisnl'

pol ir ical procedures, Lrncertaintv abour r isk' and the l ike

Geireral moral norms must be sPecit ied Lo make them suff icienrl! concrete

so th.l ! thev can f irncLir ln as pracl ical guidelines in part icular contexrs Specil ica-

t ion is not a pt-ocess of producing general norms such as t irose in the comrnon

moraiin'; i t asstlnes thar thel are alreadv available Specil ication reduces the inde-

terminateness and abstractness of gcneral norms to gil'e them increased actioD-

guiding capacitl, n'ithout loss of the moral commitmerts in the origir-ral

n.r.m1."1.tt i io, exampl., the norm that $'e must "respect the autonomous judg-

ruent o[ coi lpetent persons" cannot. unless i t is specif ied handle complicaterl

problems of wheth.r w,rtke.. have a r ight to kno\\ ' aboul polential dange$ in a

ihemical plant. This t i l l al l har"e to bc specif ied The plocess ofspecif ication l ' i l1

halc to become increasingiv concrete as ns11' problems emerge That is even

38 Ethicai Theo|r and Business pracr ice

alread\ specif icd rulcs. guiclel ines. policies, and cocles wil l almost a1$,avs have tobe specif icd further to handle nelv or unanticipated circulnstances.

As defenders of rhe comnon moralir, posit iorr see it , this is the \\,al blrslncssethics aclralh rrorks. and it is througb rhis progaessive spccil ication th.tr \c rcrarnthc corrlnton Droralitl and make moral progrerr. Tlr" .o-Irron noralitl can be e\_Lended as l lrr as rvc need to extend it ro rneet practical objectivcs. there is, ofcourse- alnJals the possibi l i tr of dereloping mor-e than onc l ine of specit icationlrhen co[fionting paactica] probiems end moral clisagrecnien$. IL is to Dc expecLc(t_itrdecd. ir is unavoidab]e-t] iat dif i i rent pcr.sons

"rr, l g.o,,p. lvi l l olfer confl icr irre

spccil ications to resolve confl icts or ragllene.s. In ant.eir..n problematic or di lem_madc case. se\eral competing specifications mav be offer-ed b| reasonable ancl fair-miudcd part ies. al l of r,r 'hon are seriols abour maintairr ing l iclel irr. to Lhe conmonmorali t l :

. For example. manv internadonal organizations and mult inational corpora_

tions a-r-e currentlv strugeling wirh rhe n:rture of Lheir obligarions to prorect rhe pri_|ac\ of p: l t ienr. ci ient, and customer records. A str ikirrg eiample is the problern ofll()rr' to rewr'ite mles of privacv in the Sl.iss banking sw"-, \uiriah i. 1ol, lltoerso-ing ttrassire changes in i ts understanding of obligarions to supph inior-ntation lothil .1 parties. It is apparent that thr re ar e m anr :ilccrc rrtcmp r.

'in S!\,irzet_land and

clse$.here to address this issue and rhrt obl jgdriuns ,, i dis. losur. and pri lacl l . i l l bel ' \ p rc . . sd d iHer -n r l v i r r d i - r , r r r i n . r i r u r i on . . The re i . r r , r r e , snn r . , r i r i r r l r h . r r , r rhone set of prir:ro,.protection rules is justifiable.

Ihis di\.eriiq does not distress defenders of a comnon_rnoralit\, rheorlt be_cause thev believe that all rhar w,e can ask of mo.al agents is rhat ther impartiailvarrcl faithftilll specifr rhe nornN of rhe comlnon moialjrv l.ith an ei,e to overallr l o r . r l en l re t enec .

A Prologue to Theories ofJustice

-\Iartv rules and principles lbrm lhe ternls of cooperation in societrt Societv is laccdI ' i t l r rmp l i , i t . a r rd e rp l i , i r e r r i r qemer r . . , n . l oe , , . n , . n r . r r n r l - r r r l r i , f 1 i , , , l i r i J r r il l t e oDLrg-rLed Lu .oL,pcra te or rhsLJiI from interfering I, i th others. philos()phers arernterestecl jn thejustice of these terms uf tu"p.rari,r i t . Ther po.r ctuesrions such asj ] : : '1 t1 , , q i r r .6n. ps l .6n , , r g rnup or propt - r t rc , iq t , io . r f . , , , , . ,p . r , , , , , , ,nom another person or group of people in sone societal interchange (espccialh.an econoll l ic one ) if the fornter benefit and the latter do noi? Is it jusi for some cit_izens ro have rnore properw rhal others: Is ir fair for oa" paa,ori,o gurn ur, aarr_nomic advantase over another. ifboth abide strictiv bv existins societal rulesl

In rheir atrempLs to answer such questions, rcrne philoso'phers believe thar di_verse human judgmenrs and belicfs aboutjuslice can'be brought inb s_vsremarrcunit\,.rhrough a generid theo'. ofjustice.Justice has been arrotr,r.a ait"r.rr, lr, lr,r,,.(\cr.. in ri\r l atrd ottcn ineomprrrble theo es. These general normativc theories ofIt l\t l(c are trearEd rn ( haptcr 10. Here ]{e need note onh,thaL a kev clistinction be_F"teeln ju,st froccda.es andjust rrstlr exists in the literature onjustice.

Ethical Theon' ald Busilress Precrice

Idcallv. it is preferable to h:rve both. but this is not alt'avs possible For eram-

ole. a petson might achielc ejust r_eslt l t in r_eciisrr ibuting rveahh but mlght use an

onjLrsr' procedure to achier'e that rcsult. such as undesen'ed taxation of certain

qr;rLps. Bl col l trast, jusL proceclures someti l les evenll late i l unjust rcsults es rvhen

e l l i r l tr ial f incls an innocent person gtl i l tv Some ruriters in brLsincss eLhirs ar e ct 'n-

cer1]ccl \ , i th isslres oI pr_ocedutal justice lr 'hen ther disclrss sr ' lch concern\ : l \ the Ltse

of orlbudsnen. gricvance procedures, Peer revie\!. and arbitnt ion Procedu'es'\ lanl problents ol justice lhit a cooP€rati l 'e socieL! must handle involve some

slstem or ret.. , l procedures that fostcr. but do not ensure.just outcori les Once

rirere is ag...meot on appropriate procedules. the outcome must be accePtecl as

just, even if i t procluccs ineqr.ral ir ies that seem unjust b\ othcr standards lf proce-

iural jusrice is rhe best that can be attained-as, for example. is clainre'l in lhe

crirninirljustice slstem-socieLr should accePt the results of its slstem rljrh r ccrtarn

amounr;f hunil iw ancl perhaps make al lorvanccs for ineritable ineqrral i t ies and

e\,en inequities and misibnunes.

ANALYSIS OF CASES

Er elr subsequelt chapter of this volume contains cases in1'olring business ectir ities

es NeLl as juclicial opinious ("case lalr"'). Thougl-r these cases do not deri\e frotl

nolal phitsophl, thev merit uroral analvsis The t'rJ' ?l"i'or! as ir is ofcen called' has

Irng been usecl in larv and business lbr such prlrposes Recenth phiiosophical ethics

has clrarvn altention to the imPottance ol case s dies bur their use is still contro

versial and unsett led.

The Case Method in Law

Casc lat ' estabiishes precedents of evidence :rnd jusrif ication. The eari icst devel-

opmr:nrs in the la$ s use of the case method occurr-ed around 1370, rvhcn

Chlisrophel Columbts Langdell r-erolrrt ionized academic stand2lrds and teaching

rechuiqires bl introclucing this sl 'stem at the Hanar-d Laq'School.es Langdell 's

Le\Lbooks contai ed calses selected and arranged to reveal the Per\ 'asl\ 'e meanlng

of legal terms and the rules and principles of law. He enlisioned a di:r ler:t ical or

Socratic manner of argument to show students how concePts. rules' and princi-

pies are found in the legal reasoning o1'the judges who lvrote the oPinions A

reacher or legal scholar was to ertract fundamenral principles, rnuch in the wav a

ski l l lul biogripher might extract the principles of a Person's reaso[ing bv studl '

ir lg his or her consideredjudgmentsHol'ever. Langdell's "principles" did not prove lo be as invariant or es c'-rnsis

tcntl\ applied across coll.ts. contexts, or limes as Langdeli had anticipated lt

turned out that incompatjble and rival theories or aPProaches bv judges tended

to control malv of the precede t cases. Nevertheless. the case method ultimatelv

39

-10 Lrhical TheoF aur] Busir less Pracri.e

prcr'r i le{i irr Li.S. lar\ schools, and sri l l todtv rhe stuch ofcascs offers reachers andstuden$ e powerfl l l tool lbr g-t lcL-rl izirLu lront t.rrrs. Tn rh( thl Ltst-an.l-parn class,ro()m sett ing, tcicher aDd srudent al ike leach coltclusi()ns about Lhe rights and\\'ronr.rs li)uncl in the c:rscs thel read,

The Case Method in Business

\\hen rlie Hanard Business School uas opened in 19011. its first dean. Echlin F_ Gar,.adopted the Lar! School curr'iculum a-. a proton?e lbr cou$es on conlmerciai L1\r :ln(le\entualh :ls a model thr-oughout rhe business school. B\' I919 the merhod had rrkcnhold. and erentualh,i t cane to cl.rnindte brsincss rth, rolr rhJl r lr tphasize . lc] iberatiol lancl decision nafing, rveighing competing considemtions. ar]d reachilrg a decision ir-rcorrplex ancl dilficult circurnstances.:!)Judgnent, nther thtn doctrine. principle. orlact, ras taught. (,ascs rhar coulcl not be resoi\ed bv reference to atailable principles orpreccden$ \!erc prelel-red fbr instructiona] pur?oses over those rhat cou.ld be r'ea<lilrrcsohed. Thus. cases \{ere selecte.l hecause Lhe\'\rere 'hard cases."

(lases prepared for sruc.lv under this mcthod npicalh rccreate a otaltilllerialsitLrarion in rvhjch di lemmas ale co[frontcd. Cases are noL printari lr-used ro i l lus-Lnte principlcs or'rules, because Lhe latter abstractions are general iv inadequare ibrl lnal resolurions in real-rvorld business siruarions. The objcctire is to develop a ca_pacin to glasp problems and ro f ind novel soiutions that work in verv puzzling circLrllsta[ces: Krtouing hort to think and act is more prized than hnou,in{ tllatsonlethins is the case or th:rr a pr. inciple applies.

This use of rhe case merhod in busiless schools springs from an ideal of edu-calion that pl l ts the student in t l te decision making role al ier aD init ial irnrrrersionirto the facs of a comple\ situation. Theories and gener.al izations are t lou.nplaleclin this pedagogt. and the ski l ls of thinking and acting in colrrple\ and u[cer tairr en-\ ' l ronments are upgraded. The essence of the casc nethod is to present a situationreplete rvith dre facts. opinions. and prejudices an erecuti le misht encolrnterloften in an actual cise) and to help the student hncl a \!av to make decisious insucll : lD envllonrnenL,

This method makes no assLllnption that there is a ngrt an${er t{) anv problcnlbur meintains onh.that there are more oa less successful.$,ats ofhandling protr lems.L-nderstanding argunent and analvsis (as discussed in the l irst secrion of this chapter) is more important than unclerstanding subsnndve theories (as presented inlhe second secrion). These lbms of understanditg need not be antagorrist ic orcompetit ive, but the case nethod in business schools has placed rhe prcnium onproblem-basccl anairsis. rarher than on anahsis bv appeal to rheon.. This methodaLso avoids dre authorin.based method rel ied on in law schools, where.juclges andrhe bod! ol laN are overridiDg authorities.

The Case Method in Ethics

The term .d.rulJir.) is nol! cotnnoniv used in ethics to refer to a nethod of usingcases k) anilvze and propose solutions to moral problems. Casuist5 see ethics asbasecl on seasonecl experieuce in resolving hard cases.30 Thc casuistical me*rod is

[ th ical T]reon'and Business Pr:rct ice . l l

fo sfar_r \.filli lantlign ceses $'hose conclusions on ethicai matters ale \elfled and

theD Lo cornPare and contLlst tht- ccntr'al features in the paratiign cases \!'i1h the

feaurt es of cases in nlee.l of a decisio[.

To i l lustratc rhis poir ' t t , cotrsider a cotlpal isorr lo clse larl arrd Lhe cloct| i e of

precedenr. Jucl icial decisions hale rhe porenrial to become all thor-i tat ive for other

irLclqes tr_hen Lhc! conliont sirni lar-cases in similar circLlnstaDces CorlteolPoran cl1--s,,isir.

pl.ces a ,,ntttpar_eb1e premiurr on case authoin. logether \\ith a strong Prel:crerlce for alalogical reasorring o\:er elhical thcon and abstract pri lrciPles l t is

analogical rensoning that l inks one casc t() lhe ne\t. Xloral reasoning occl lrs bv aP_

peal ro analoeies. models. classif ication schemes, anci eren immediate innrir ion and

J i . . , n i r g i r r . r e \ r . r ho r r r p r r r i , u l . r r t .f lasuists elso maintain thatprinciples attd nrles afc t\Picalh too indeterlnlnate

ro r ielr l specif ic noral judgments. I t is therefore impossible. casuists iusist, that

thelc be a unidirectional movernent of thought ftom principles to cases-{-hat has

ofiel been called the "application" of a P.jnciPle to a case. Nlolcover. f tom a casu-

ists perspecti lc, p Dciples are mereh'summaries ofpeoples expericnce in reflect

ing on cases. not independent norrlr5.There is nruch in rhese casuistical arerrments that is rerealing ald worth serious

consideration. but casuists sometimes trire as though cases leacl to moral paradigms

or-juclgnrent-s entirelv br their facts alone. This rhesis seems mistakcn. The pL 'pcr tie"

that pcople obsene to be of moral importance in cases ate selected bl the lalues that

ther'hare alrcedr accepted as being morallv imponant or have come !o -rppreciate

rthile eraminilg the case. No natter holr,maDy salient facls ar_e assembled, there lvill

srill need to be sone lalue premises in order to reach a tnoral conclusionLppcals ro "par:rcligm cases" can easily conceal this fact. These "cases" might

jusr as rtel l be called "cases that contain a norm.' Paradigln cases gain status as P:u-adigns becarrse ofsolne colnmilment lo central lalues that are Prescn'ed l iom onc

cilse to tilc next case. For someone to mo\:e conslrucdveh froni case to case. t)ne of

more \'ailres [llrst connect the cases. E|en to recognize a case as a paradigm case is

to accept !!bate\er p nciples or values al lot 'rhe paradigms ro be extended to othercases. \\ihaLever can be learned fiom a case and then exportecl lo another c:lse cannot be entirei\ specifrc to the first case: oni! some lorm of general nor-m (rheory

princ\r le. rule) can lead to the next case.

Ethical Theory and Case Analysis

There are clangers iD transfcrring the case methods irl lar and business to brisinessedrics. Not much is drear' ier than a redious and unrewarding exposure to the moralopinions of rhose ignorant of the kinds of material outlifled in the first and secondparts of rhis chapter Sruchirrg cases in business erhics is facilitated bv a Lnorlcdgeof thc liiston of ethics and t\,pes of ethical theor\'. Theon and history horvever, alsoshould not renrain isolared liom modilicatioD bv case studr'. Seveul reasons sup-

Port thisjudgnleDr.First. it seems mistaken to sal that ethical theon'is nor ertracted from the exam-

inadon of cases but onl,v applied to or specified in cirscs. L.rse5 n, 't ,)nl' provide datafor theon but also act as the resting ground for dreories. Illuminatins cases lead to

12 [rhical T]rcorr err. l Busiless pfi lct ice

lnodil ical ion :1nd rcl iDcrrenr_s of rhcorerjci l l comnlitrnenls. cspe.riel lr b! poirrr ing tol inriurt iorrs ofthcorics. hr rhir.rkin!r t lrr-ough rhc possible role oicasc analrsis in cthics.ir is useii t l to cotrsiderJohD Rarris s celebratecl account of*rcf lectjve .r l t rr l i l ,r i t Lu 1... TDcie|cloping an erhi. i1l rheon. he er.grre-s. i i ls appropriaic to ,tar r \ \ . iLlr rhe br-r)adesr pos_sible .rct ofconsidered rnot-al. juclgrrients aDcl ro e, ect a prc,l isional ser ofpriDciplcs rhat'ei lects them. Rcllective eq.i l ibri turr vicrrs erhics as a t\ :N of tcsl inir o'. ,r:r l 'el iefs tonake thcrl l :rs coher_ent as possiblr \ t .1tr| ] ! I \ \ ir l t p.tr i . l lum\, 1 r.LL-rr is morrl ir prope r.()l lncrrrll\ trnlrroper. orre thcn searches 1or prirrciples that are coltsistenL \ritli thcsep.1rri(trstns. \\'idell accr:pted principies ol righr acrion and corsiderecijurlellents ar(ltltkeu. as Rl ls puts it. ,'prolisionall!

as fixed poirrrs.' but also as.,liellle t(] rensloD..,Lan\tdercd lut lgrnenti is a technical tcrnr rel irr ing to . judgmenas

in nhich orrrlroral c:rpacir ics :u.e most l ikcl,, ro be displ:rvecl r, i th,rut, l ist,r i t i ,rrr_.,Jtxamples areJLrcl3l lrettts al]out the lr:rongness of racial r l iscrinrinerion. rel igioLrs intolerince. andpolir ical conll ict of into.esr_ Bv contt isr. judgmenrs i tr t thich ine.s conjiclencc iert lis lorr or irr l ,hich one is inf lrrencerl br the p;ssibi l in. ol,personal gain are erchrdetl.The goal is Lo march and ?rrne consiclcreci juclgruenrs and principles rn .1u erLcmprt() nlake them coltercnt, lr l

In conclLlsion, ne catr rccall the prcl ioLls cl iscLlssions irr the l ir .sr prrt ol. t l t is.hapLel on relati ' ism a.d i loral disagr-ee'renL. Often',.hen . iscussiirs cl i f i lc. l tcases, nlanv points ofvie$ are bortnccd ar.rrnd Lhc classroonl. and rhe carntr()\.cf_sles n:1\ ' seert intrackblc and not sul ject to a pelsuasive f irrm of anah.sis tran-scending persolral opini<tn. Far.f i-our r ier,-. ing their class

".,rr, . ,r. i ,o,rrrr.rrr-,rtlearning. studenLs ntav perceive the class as a l incl of bul let in boarcl upon rlhicl iscores oi opinioDs rlre r:rcked. It *ourd be a rnistake. ho.!re\.e1., to concLudc th:tt slrclrcri t ical cl iscl lssion eventuare\ or.rh. in opinion ancl r lonoiogue. I lanr app:rrelttn()ral di ienn)as do turn l .rut t{t be pi l t ial iv rcsolrabic in the colrtext o] such ci iscrrs\ iol. r lDd often a conscnsus posit ion crnergcs t lrr-ough cl ialogue. er.cn i f rro onc en_ltcl | agrees on fhe rheoredcal re:rsons fbL.clel inding the aonsensrrs poslttLrn.

(.ases lhould alrr 'ars be erarlr incd in ternrs of alrernadve s[:rresics an(l ac_tirrrrs._lrrral iabh. manl aitero:l t i \ 'e! 1\, i l l be p.oposed. but. just as iu:rr iablv thel.\ \ , i l lnot eJl be equalh good. Eren if intractable disagreerient occur.s. lcarning hor tospart ploblems an.l help el leriare or clef lecr them lna1 tur. out ro be a: imp'rnrr rsttre substanti\ 'e issues themseh:es.

3.

I

NOTES

1 , , | l J \ l l h r t . I I r , . _ \ \ , t , - r e p e , . r , r e . , . . { . h i n f r | | , 1 . . t . I v | e t r B , R e \ . r d _' 1 2 | t l | \ 1 r . t l . t . . a / , O r r . " I l t , l g c r h .Robert Lindser'. '-.\ncienr

Redri,ood Trces Fe ro a \\ill Srreet Taki)r,ef,,, -\a1, j.irLnr?e\ ( I larch 2. 1988), pp. _\16-17.I n s r r n n c e i l l f o r m a t i o I I n s r i r u r c , l s b e s r r , \ L r : r L r L n , L - \ e \ \ \ , ) r L , l & r . t - j , : 0 r ) . j ,\ ' \ ' . . , . i . , : n - , , i r h , , r , , p r , . . , , . . , , . , . t . . , r u .Iaken tuol1r P--rer Huber.. ,The press (;.rs (JlI Easr ilt Tort Lar.. l]t ! Strtet lorunal( fuiv 11. 19851, editor. iaLpage.

I t r t . . , i I l ' r ' . ' , ' l I l , . i ' . . . I ' , " i , '

' 'Pr i r tc jple Sale. I |at l sh., . t Jaurnul() lal : ! , 19851. P.: j . : r .' 'Rr:rrr ing rothe I levi table. ' Dr ies tAugLtsr l : . I93:r . P 6{ j

Thorras Hobbcs, l4 ir l l lar. Paft I . aiheP. l :J, P:Lr. -q.

lhis thcsis is af$red (\ \ . l rhorrr refercr lcc lo pir i l rsr:rphir :el theol ics ,r f cgoisnl) i r !\ \ol fga.g Sauer: Also .r ( loDcrete Self lnrefe\t , ' I ' r r i l r / - \al i rnI Cirrnrrr ' r lsrLic on'Gl. ,hr l Sr lsrainable DeveloprrrcnL: The Coryorere ResPols bi l i t ! 1. Onl ine E.1Frion 1:01)t l : l f l \ r ! . r .Lrr .org pubs ch|orr ic le 20t)2 issrte3

For en acr Ll l i l i laf i in e\xmple in business erhics, "cc

R \1. Hare. Corrunerrt l r , : ru

BearLchrnrp s llanipulaLi|e .{rtvertising, Bu l^.\ totli laat'si.nnl Lth..\ Jaunlal 3( I 98+): :3 28; for a l Lr le ul i l inf ian e\amplc, se- ' Robcft - l ln leder. ' ln l le lense ofShrks: Uonl IssLres in I lost i lc Liquiclatrrrg Tak- 'oreI\ , Jootul Dl B \ i "^ ' I : th i . \ 'l r ) 119! l1l : -1i i - -+t.1.

iom L. Beattchamp. e(1., (:^t \tudlt: ut B/rrinr..u, .51,r;./r. and Cllr,.r. 5th ed (LPPcr

Sr. ldlc Rr\ cr, NJ: l lcnt ice Hel l . : i )0- l ) , Chap.3.( l \N.cc,nl (Scpt.3, l ! l9g), Onl ine Shoppc|s Bid \ I i l l ions loIHunan Kidner. '

\ l : r . lhn\, Go\al . ct r l . , E.onomic an. l I leahh Consequcnces ol Sel l ing a Kichter t t tInl,i},.' lrntnnl tf rhe ,\ntntcan )fuditttl .\ssattulirr. 23S iOctobcr :1, :200!l): 15E(,t-!lll

trirr\ Schlirllgcnstcjrl. \\b|kers ohlp h to Help SouthNcsl Emplor-'es Ofler FreeL,: \hor." TbStnttbTit 6 (Scpr. :6.2( l0ir , p. E1.

Scr Jennifef Hul l . ' t 'nocal Sues Birnk. \ l l t l l \h!d Jaut) inl \ \ l . t rch 13. 19851.p.2'J:l:tncl Chefles Uc(lov, \Iesa Petr,:,lerrm Alleees Llrocal (,oerre(l B:Lnks. ll;rll tlr4l

/ r?rrnl7/ i \ Iarch ! ! , 19f i5), p. 6.

Seel)ar idS.t l i lzenrath."TirkiDg-\matlnsiderBankDeals. ' I1;r i in.qldlr i i (Scp-

rembcr 30, l l l9 l l , \ \eshingron BrNiness scc., p. 1.

Rlhi l KiDg. Insider ' Loans: Evenone \ \ar Donlg I t . l lusiness : .0: r$r*.busines' ! .com aft ic les, mag ( l rs posred.Januarr Li . 20011).

For r len. l Inafk agreemeDr on ihe Is land of Saiparl (r c lass ncr ioD serr lenerl l . 5eeTh. L)grLI Itttrlhun.t:t. 2:7, no. 61 { Sep t. 30, :0(): ). Nalionel \er{s Se.rion. p. 1.

Ronaid Dri'rrrknr argues that pol;1?rdl moralin is r'lghrs-based ur n*nt,r Ritht: Stt), l / . rh lLondoD: Drrr :k1\orrh. 197; i , p. l7 l . .John tr Iackie ha5 aPpl ied thi \ the{ is tont)nLn lrn%ill\ ri (,an Thefe Be r Right Besecl trlo.al Thcor':' .\t),li|'Ptt Siudi.t DtPhi luwl b, 3 ( l - ' :17! i l i csp. p. 35r). See furrhe|Judith. falr is Thomsor. nr ,Rrdr, n/nr,q&/\ (( ] l lmbridgc, \1. \r Hir \r f . l Universin Pfeis. 1t ]30), pp. 1:2ff .

See tiu tller -\lal Gel'irfi, '\\'Lr Righs ere IndirPe nsibl.', -liind, 115 119361::133;l lnd Cerrr th 's larer bo.)k.1h! Connnunit , t / Rigrtu (Chicago: L nirersi t l of ChicagoPress. 1996t.

Scc Darid Brerbrookc. The Fi1-m brr Untillr Clor.r.el;rti\i$ of Righ$ and Obljga-rrrs. f :urr tr l tuuJournal al PlLi lovlh | ( l9, ! I : :151-611;CarIP\\elht t i l r r .Rral-R;gr lr

t \err !?rrk: Oxford Lni\ersi t i Press, I995).

Se-- rhe rreatmenr ol rhese dist in.dons in EI ic \hck. ed., ht : i t i te and \ iSrt t i r e Du/ i .J ( \er Orle;rns: T[ laDe l- ni ler5i6 Press. ]9E5)

Carol Gilligan. In a DiJeftnt lbrrr iCambridgc, \Ld: Harvard Lriveritv Prcss.1!r32J.{nnette Baief, ,)k rll Pt"j1t.li.es iCanbridgc, }L\: lllrr\ard Urli\efsiF Press, 199'11.chi.pref li .\nd Pattur.\ aJ th. llnul (Nli rcapolis: L'di\ersitl of \linncsola Press,1 9 8 5 ) , p p . 2 1 { ) - 2 1 9 .

\hholrgh rherc is onh i s ir l le. r ln i \ersir l common nror i l i l t . thcrc is mo.e lhanone i i ral t of f ie common morel i l . The conlrnon morr i i l \ rs uni \c$lr l l tshare. l : i ris not a trrrn of $hat is uni lersalLl shared. Iof e\anrPles ol di lcrse dreories of theconmon noralin: see Alan Don:lqan, TlLt l'hcan t)l araliry (Cihicego: Universinol Chrcago Press, I9i7) i BerDard Gert. Charles \{. CrLlver, and K. Danlro Clouser.

.1J

t).7E.

11I l .

l . l .

I :r.

1rl.

t ; .

:f.)

?J ,

I :1.

21.

18

Erhicr l Theon anrl Bl ts iness Pr: lct icc

B)adh ! : . \ tututn tr L11"darL.nld1! lNe\f \(rk: a)ford U'r i \ 'ersiF Pr- 'ss, 1! l9i t ranr: l\\i. D Ross.

'nre I otlmlation \ rJ Lth ).r (O\iord Oxf-r )rd tllli\ crsin Pfess. l9:191 .

?5. See Sissela P'ok. (bnnon i iJ l l rzs iColunrbi i r , \ lO: Lni \ersi t \ of \ I issouri Press.l9!15,. pp. 13-:3, 50 59. SLe ci tes a boctr of i r f lucnt ial l ' r ' i ters on the subject.

26. a,oinpa,c thc irrguments ill G. J. \\'alll,ick, The Ortrt af \tr'.rlif llon.lorl:\ lethuen & (o.. l97l l . csp. pp. 15 :11:-Tohn \ la.kie. Ltht. . ' : ln l ' .nt ing l lght anll l ron! l london: Penguin. l9;7r, pp. 1o;f f .

:t. See Henn Richa.dson. "Specifling Norils as a \\iar ro Resolve Grncrete Erhir:alPloblems. Pl l losol&1 anA Pubh.,VJtrn\1.e i l99r lr ,pp.27.J-:110rRichaf. lson. Spe.-il-!ing. Balancing, ar)d Interpretinq Bioethicel ldnciples. f&rnul 0f ))[adl.ltu 4ndPhtlasoft^ 23 (9000). 23:-30;.

28 Chrislopher Columbus l-ansclell's flrsl cesebook an Contftrcts is treatecl inf.a$'rence NL Friednan, .\ Hl\tar", aJ .\nni..an laa (\err \c-rr k: Sirnoi arrd Schuster1973), pp. 531t The geneml accolrnt of the case merhod irr this sect jon is indebt-ed t{r this source, and also ro G. Edward \flrtte. Tai L Lat r Anoi.u: .\n Lntllt.tuatHj9t4 lNerv\brk: O li)rl:t LriversiF Press. 198{)1.

29. See tr{. P \lc\air ed.. The Cuse trltthatl dt Iltr Hai\lt.| l:iusit.\\ S.honl l\ew \irrk:\fcGrar.Hill, 195.1j.

:ll). See -{berr.Jorlscll lurd Stepher 'foulmi

n. Ahu$ aJ Ctry!tstry (P'clkclcv: L'ri\ cr !it\ ofCal i t l r rnia Press, I933r. pp. 11-19, 6F6;, :51-251.296 :99;John -\rxs. l r in. i -pLes anct Pafticrrl it\!" Indiana Lalr JournaL69 (199+).

:11. John Rauls. A Theon al Justice iCambdd-qe, \A: Hanard Lniversin Pres\. 1971 r.pp. 201f. .16-48 I199-q ecl i t ion, pp. I5- l9, .10-.16l.