glass house philosopher / notebook 2
Saturday, 18th February 2006
To: Ute Sommer
From: Geoffrey Klempner
Subject: Thoughts on business ethics
In the afternoon before the Sheffield philosophy seminar I managed to start writing a few notes. Around me, in the basement cafe of the Arts Tower as I scribbled away, young students chattered and laughed. It dawned on me that I have been coming here on for 20 years. So many generations of students have come and gone.
I enjoyed Adrian Moore's paper, 'Williams, Nietzsche and the Meaninglessness of Immortality'. Twenty years ago, I gave a paper to the very same Friday seminar on 'The I Illusion'. David 'Big Dave' Bell was there, just as he was then, George Botterill, Steve Makin. The old guard. Over the 20 years the Sheffield Philosophy Department has grown to three times the size. Some things remain the same, and some things change.
Here are my two topics:
'On the possibility of a business ethic'
'Philosophy of CSR: what is it? why do it?'
The first is for my lecture to Bruce Gahir's Business Ethics class. The second is for the booklet Bruce is putting together for the British Chamber of Commerce Czech Republic.
I am going to look at business ethics today. (See page 99 for my initial thoughts on the philosophy of CSR.)
'How is X possible?' is instantly recognizable to philosophers as a Kantian-style question. Kant asked, 'How is experience possible?' as a response to Cartesian doubt about the external world. We have experience. That is a given. The question is what are the conditions which must obtain in order for that to be the case, in any possible world?
Kant argued that the sceptic who says, 'I know I have experiences but I don't know whether these experiences come from the world or only from me' is involved in a subtle form of incoherence. If you know you have experience then you cannot not know that there exists a world which your experiences are of. If there were no world for you, there wouldn't be a 'you'. There are still moves the sceptic can make, but Kant's argument raises the price of scepticism to a considerable degree.
I am looking for an argument which establishes the possibility of a business ethic, in the face of a sceptical challenge which makes business ethics appear impossible. But I also have a second question in mind, 'How is business possible?' In a similar way, I am looking for an argument which explains the possibility of business, in the face of a sceptical challenge which makes business appear impossible.
Business must be 'possible' in some sense because it exists. But of course the point of the question in this case isn't whether it is possible for business 'to exist' but rather whether its existence is consistent with the demands of ethics. The question about the possibility of business ethics, by contrast, is not about its ethical possibility 'How can it be ethical to do business ethics?' but rather how 'business ethics' can be a legitimate subject in its own right, distinguished from business studies or ethics. The fact that there exist courses on 'business ethics' is no proof that it is a legitimate subject, any more than the existence of courses on palmistry or crystal healing.
My intuition is that these questions are closely related. One stab at an explanation of how they might be related would be to say that business ethics is possible if and only if business ethics is able to deliver a coherent and useful answer to the question how business is possible. If it can't, then I don't see the point of it.
Marx in the 1844 Manuscripts gave the classic argument against the ethical possibility of business. Capitalism requires that individuals sell their labour for money. But this contradicts the fundamental ethical conditions for human flourishing as defined by man's 'essence'. (See, e.g. the essays 'Alienated Labour' and 'The Meaning of Human Requirements'.)
Marx has been 'refuted' so many times, you might wonder what point there could be in one more refutation. In the past, Marx's economics and theory of history were the chief target of attack. My interest is in the young Marx's ethics and metaphysics. In later works, Marx no longer relied on metaphysical considerations of man's 'essence' but instead offered a theory of history which purportedly demonstrated the inevitability of the overthrow of capitalism. I have nothing to say about this. Not many people do these days.
My explanation of how business is possible is my theory of the business arena. Business is possible because it takes place within a frame, which insulates it from normal ethical considerations. Business can still be 'ethical' but in a specially defined, restricted sense. That is the possibility that Marx could not see. It follows that the subject of business ethics is all about understanding how this frame operates, and what its consequences are.
Send me an Email
Ask a Philosopher!