glass house philosopher / notebook 2
Monday, 20th February 2006
To: Ute Sommer
From: Geoffrey Klempner
Subject: Re: Thoughts on business ethics
You said that there was one argument in my last email that you could not follow. 'It is where you say that business ethics is only possible if it is able to deliver an answer to the question how business can be possible.'
A good question.
I was alluding to something I wrote in 'The Business Arena':
The business arena provides the opportunity to practice all the Aristotelian virtues including temperance, justice, courage and magnanimity.
My point, however, is that this is not an ethics.
The gap between the practice of the Aristotelian virtues and ethics in the full sense is explicitly recognized in Christian teaching, with its emphasis on the virtues faith, hope and love.
Ethics, as I understand it, is based on the I and thou relationship, on unlimited obligation and unconditional love and respect for the other. This tension cannot be resolved by attempting to cobble together a 'business ethics' in the accepted sense of this term. There can be no compromise between unconditional obligation and the limited obligations that hold between players in the business arena.
That hasn't stopped philosophers from trying anyway. The only result that can be achieved by adopting this muddle-headed strategy is an ethics which is too demanding for the business arena, and insufficiently demanding outside that arena. While those who have seen clearly that compromise is impossible have either gone the hopeless way of Karl Marx or, at the opposite extreme, Ayn Rand.
The 'hopeless way of Karl Marx' would be to argue that business is ethically impossible, because selling one's labour for money contradicts the essential conditions required for human flourishing. (As I explained before, I am talking about the young Marx. The older Marx rejected all discussions of ethics as mere 'ideology'.)
The 'hopeless way of Ayn Rand' would be to argue that the only acceptable ethics is an ethics based on what she terms as the 'virtue of selfishness'. In other words, Ayn Rand's 'ethics' is derived from the requirements for competition in the business arena. We should always behave in all our relationships like business people, seeking our own advantage from every transaction and making every decision on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis.
Both Marx and Rand saw something which the 'muddle-headed' business ethicists have missed, the impossibility of applying the same rules inside and outside the business arena. What Marx and Rand overlooked is the possibility of two distinct sets of rules, with clearly marked lines of demarcation. In ordinary life, prior to any philosophical reflection, most persons intuitively recognize this. As when we say, 'That was business but this is friendship.' Of course, it is not enough just to give the rules, the philosopher has to provide an underlying rationale.
'Muddle headed' business ethics attempts to reconcile two irreconcilable requirements by seeking some kind of compromise between the rules of respect and fair play which govern the business arena and the unrestricted demands of ethics. I have argued that there cannot be any compromise. If business ethics is possible, therefore, it must find an alternative strategy, showing how business is possible from the point of view of ethics, i.e. how there can be a place for the business arena within the ethical world.
So the 'sceptical challenge which makes business ethics appear impossible' which I referred to last time would be the recognition of a powerful tension between the requirements for the ethics of dialogue in the full sense, where we reach out the hand of friendship and do not count the cost, and the requirements for the business arena where our motivations are ultimately selfish.
You might think it would still be possible 'do business ethics' in less demanding sense of looking at ethical dilemmas that arise in business practice, without attempting to resolve this tension. I grant that there will be many cases where one can adopt the strategy of 'bracketing' the deeper issue, where the structure of the problem case does not depend on its being a dilemma which arises specifically within the business world.
For example, suppose I have made a promise to Peter, and he is counting on me to keep my promise. Later, I discover something which neither of us knew at the time when I made my promise, that circumstances obtain which inevitably lead to bad consequences for Paul if I do what I promised to do. What kinds of considerations might help me to make my choice? The 'structure' of this simple dilemma translates into a business context where 'Peter' and 'Paul' are your customers, or colleagues, or corporations. It would not be surprising if the answer was along the same lines.
But then again it might not be. Prior to attacking the deeper issue the tension between the ethics of dialogue and the business arena or the question how business itself is ethically possible we don't know for sure.
Business ethics as commonly practiced today is a branch of practical philosophy, alongside medical ethics, the animals issue, the ethics of war and so on. The sceptic who says that 'business ethics is impossible' is not denying the possibility of an appeal to philosophical considerations in facing the ethical problems that confront business. Rather, the claim is that any response which fails to reckon with the deep tension that I have pointed out will contain an element of incoherence. From a purely practical point of view, an incoherent response is better than no response at all. As a philosopher, however, it is my job to point out the incoherence and attempt to resolve it.
Send me an Email
Ask a Philosopher!