Ethics

Albert Z Carr

Everyone agrees that business managers must understand finance and marketing. But is it necessary for them to

study ethics?

Managers who answer in the negative generally base their thinking on one of three rationales. They may simply say

that they have no reason to be ethical. They see why they should make a profit, and most agree they should do so

legally. But why should they be concerned about ethics, as long as they are making money and staying out of jail?

Other managers recognize that they should be ethical but identify their ethical duty with making a legal profit for the

firm. They see no need to be ethical in any further sense, and therefore no need for any background beyond business

and law.

A third group of manager’s grant that ethical duty goes further than what is required by law. But they still insist that

there is no point in studying ethics. Character is formed in childhood, not while reading a college text or sitting in

class.

These arguments are confused and mistaken on several levels. To see why, it is best to start with the question raised

by the first one: why should business people be ethical?

WORKS OF ALBERT CARR

Men of power

Business as a Game

Is Business Bluffing Ethical

MAJOR WORK OF ALBERT CARR

Albert Carr’s very popular essay, “Is Business Bluffing Ethical?” argues that deception, for example, is a legitimate

part of business. Business, he says, is like a poker game. There are rules, but within the rules it is permissible to bluff

in order to mislead others. In fact one must do so or lose the game. The ethical rules of everyday life therefore do not

apply to business.

ALBERT CARR THEORY USING THE POKER GAME ANALOGY

Carr, like Friedman, has a point. Bluffing is expected in many business contexts, no less than in poker. No one

expects negotiators to put all their cards on the table, or advertisers to tell the whole truth about their product. What

the poker analogy actually tells us, however, is that “deception” is not really deception when everyone expects it as

part of the game. Nobody is deceived when advertisers say their product is the best on the market; everyone says

that. So Carr does not actually defend deception. Hiding a card up one’s sleeve, on the other hand, is truly deception

because it breaks the rules of poker and no one is expecting it. Carr agrees that this sort of behavior, which he calls

“malicious deception,” is wrong.

One problem with Carr’s poker analogy is that he overextends it. In a poker game everyone knows the rules, but

business situations can be very ambiguous. If a food processor places false labels on packaging, it is highly unclear

that consumers are “in on the game” and expect this sort of thing. If Mom and Dad take the kids to school in the

family car, it is hard to argue that they “expect” the car to be unsafe, as was the Ford Pinto with its famous exploding

gas tank. Such practices are now illegal precisely because they genuinely deceived customers, sometimes with

deadly results.

The example of the political contribution, as well as several others in his article, suggest that Carr is making an even

stronger claim. He seems to argue that the business game justifies a whole range of activities beyond bluffing, such

as perversion of the political process. The difficulty with this argument is that it proves too much. It implies that

executives can do anything they want if it is part of a business game in which people play by the rules. But suppose

the game is a shakedown racket, and everyone in town understands the rules: one must pay protection money or get

roughed up by company thugs. This does not make it all right to participate in the racket, even if it is legal, which it is

not. In fact, it is illegal precisely because it is the wrong kind of game to play.

EXAMPLES SUPPORTING THE THEORY

Using examples from the 1960s era in which he wrote the paper, Carr defends:

1. “Food processors” that use “deceptive packaging of numerous products”;

2. “Automobile companies” that “for years have neglected the safety of car-owning families,” as described in Ralph

Nader’s famous book Unsafe at Any Speed;

3. “Utility companies” that “elude regulating government bodies to extract unduly large payments from users of

electricity.”

4. “As long as they comply with the letter of the law,” he says, “they are within their rights to operate their businesses

as they see fit.”

Playing to Win

If a man plans to take a seat in the business game, he owes it to himself to master the principles by which the game

is played, including its special ethical outlook. He can then hardly fail to recognize that an occasional bluff may well

be justified in terms of the game's ethics and warranted in terms of economic necessity. Once he clears his mind on

this point, he is in a good position to match his strategy against that of the other players. He can then determine

objectively whether a bluff in a given situation has a good chance of succeeding and can decide when and how to

bluff, without a feeling of ethical transgression.

Example: To be a winner, a man must play to win. This does not mean that he must be ruthless, cruel, harsh, or

treacherous. On the contrary, the better his reputation for integrity, honesty, and decency, the better his chances of

victory will be in the long run. But from time to time every businessman, like every poker player, is offered a choice

between certain loss or bluffing within the legal rules of the game. If he is not resigned to losing, if he wants to rise in

his company and industry, then in such a crisis he will bluff-and bluff hard.

Every now and then one meets a successful businessman who has conveniently forgotten the small or large

deceptions that he practiced on his way to fortune. "God gave me my money," old John D. Rockefeller once piously

told a Sunday school class. It would be a rare tycoon in our time who would risk the horse laugh with which such a

remark would be greeted.

In the last third of the twentieth century even children are aware that if a man has become prosperous in business, he

has sometimes departed from the strict truth in order to overcome obstacles or has practiced the more subtle

deceptions of the half-truth or the misleading omission. Whatever the form of the bluff, it is an integral part of the

game, and the executive who does not master its techniques is not likely to accumulate much money or power.

ILLUSTRATION THROUGH THE SALES EXECUTIVE EXAMPLE

Carr tells of a sales executive who made a political contribution he did not believe in, to keep an important client

happy. When the executive told his wife about it, she was disappointed with her husband and insisted he should have

stood up for his principles. The executive explained to her how he must humor clients to keep his job. She

understood the dilemma but concluded that “something is wrong with business.”

Carr analyzes the incident as follows:

This wife saw the problem in terms of moral obligation as conceived in private life; her husband saw it as a matter of

game strategy. As a player in a weak position, he felt that he could not afford to indulge an ethical sentiment that

might have cost his seat at the [poker] table.

Carr not only expects the executive to make such choices but cautions him not to agonize over them. “If an executive

allows himself to be torn between a decision based on business considerations and one based on his private ethical

code, he exposes himself to a grave psychological strain.”

Relevance Today

The article was written by Albert Z. Carr in 1968, but still seems very relevant today. Its applications and justifications

seem to fit perfectly in today’s business world. Today business is all about making a profit. Man’s greed has blinded

his senses so much that he can go to any extend to make a profit. Money seems to be the ultimate goal. Albert Z.

Carr’s philosophy or this take on business ethics strengthens and supports the take of today’s business supporting

them on their stand that the business of business is to do business. He was such a visionary that in 1968 he wrote an

articale that was very relevant for the 21st century. Albert Z. Carr take on business ethics is a major source of support

for people today who do not follow ethical practices in business as his philosophy helps them justify their stand.

CONCLUSION

The unavoidable fact is that some business games are good and some are bad. The right kind of competition, for

example, can allow everyone to come out ahead, while the wrong kind can be destructive. When one plays the wrong

game, then indeed “something is wrong with business.” How does one know which game to play? There is a field that

deals with this issue, and it is called ethics.

Carr compounds his error when he advises executives not to agonize over business decisions. He is right to say that

they must not let personal sentiment cloud their judgment, particularly when it comes to such unpleasant duties as

laying off employees or shutting down a plant. They certainly should not be paralyzed by indecision and doubt. But

they must nonetheless struggle with the alternatives. Hard decisions are part of life. Sometimes the game of business

requires one to compromise oneself in order to make a larger contribution. Perhaps the sales executive can promote

an exciting new product only by putting up with little indignities like kowtowing to his clients. But he should never

compromise his values without soul searching, which is to say, without carefully reviewing the ethical situation. Carr’s

assertion to the contrary is profoundly unwise.

Immanuel Kant - Categorical Imperative

The above theory is the main philosophical concept in the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. This particular idea

was introduced in “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals” by Kant. This concept forms the basis of rationality

from which all moral requirements are derived. Kant defines the demands of the moral law as “categorical

imperatives”. They are principles that are naturally valid; they must be obeyed in all scenarios and circumstances if

our behaviour is to observe moral law. This principle is based on the Deontological moral system.

Kant separated reason into 'theoretical reason' (which covers things such as math and logic), and 'practical reason',

which is the basis for discovering moral truth. Kant believed practical reason was superior to theoretical reason,

because only this had the ability to give us knowledge as to how we should live. Kant also held that practical reason

was grounded in a sense of ought. In others words, through a careful consideration and evaluation of choices, people

could come to realise what their moral duty was, and do it. Thus by working out what we 'ought' to do, we can be to

understand what we should and must always do. This also means that it is logically impossible for practical reason to

lead people to have a sense of 'ought' about something they cannot, or should not do

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

About the Author

Immanuel Kant [22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804] was an 18th-century German philosopher from the Prussian city

of Königsberg (now Kaliningrad, Russia). Kant was the last influential philosopher of modern Europe in the classic

sequence of the theory of knowledge during the Enlightenment beginning with thinkers John Locke, George Berkeley,

and David Hume.

Kant created a new widespread perspective in philosophy which influenced philosophy through to the 21st Century.

He published important works on epistemology, as well as works relevant to religion, law, and history. One of his

most prominent works is the Critique of Pure Reason, an investigation into the limitations and structure of reason

itself. It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics and epistemology, and highlights Kant's own contribution

to these areas. The other main works of his maturity are the Critique of Practical Reason, which concentrates on

ethics, and the Critique of Judgment, which investigates aesthetics and teleology. Kant’s thought was very influential

in Germany during his lifetime, moving philosophy beyond the debate between the rationalists and empiricists. Also,

he made an important astronomical discovery, namely the discovery of the retardation of the rotation of the Earth, for

which he won the Berlin Academy Prize in 1754. He became a university lecturer in 1755. In 1781, he came up with

Critique of Pure Reason. During his own life, there was a considerable amount of attention paid to his thought, much

of it critical, though he did have a positive influence on Reinhold, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, and Novalis during the

1780s and 1790s. The philosophical movement known as German Idealism developed from Kant's theoretical and

practical writings.

Kant's most original contribution to philosophy is his "Copernican Revolution," that, as he puts it, it is the

representation that makes the object possible rather than the object that makes the representation possible. This

introduced the human mind as an active originator of experience rather than just a passive recipient of perception.

Something like this now seems obvious: the mind could be a tabula rasa, a "blank tablet," no more than a bathtub full

of silicon chips could be a digital computer. Perceptual input must be processed, i.e. recognized, or it would just be

noise -- "less even than a dream" or "nothing to us," as Kant alternatively puts it.

Theory/Concept on Business Ethics

• To understand categorical imperative philosophy, let us understand what these terms means. . An

“imperative” is a command. We are given “commands” all the time. Commands tell us what our obligations

are. Kant contrasts categorical with hypothetical. Hypothetical means conditional and Categorical means

unconditional. An obligation is conditional if it applies only under certain circumstances an obligation is

unconditional if it applies under any and all circumstances. A categorical imperative is a command that

expresses an unconditional obligation. Kant’s principle of the categorical imperative, places the moral

authority for taking action on individual’s duty toward other individuals and humanity.

Let us consider the following examples

• Never steal or cheat.

• Never lie or deceive.

• Always treat people respectfully and fairly, no matter who they are.

• Treat yourself as well as you treat others, others as well as you treat yourself.

The obligations are unconditional, whatever may be the situation, and these cannot go wrong. Contrary to this let us

look into following examples

• Do your homework and study for your tests.

• Floss your teeth every day.

• Take two tablets once per day for ten days.

• Drive on the right hand side of the road, not the left.

The above obligations are situational, like you have to study because you are a student, flossing is for self interest,

and so on.

Ultimately Kant believes that all the categorical imperatives that make up the “moral law” are grounded in a single

imperative. He calls it the “Categorical Imperative. In simplified form it is this: “Always and only do those actions that

you could approve of everyone in similar circumstances doing as a rule (and not the exception)”.

There are three versions of Kant’s imperative Theory.

1. The first formulation (Formula of Universal Law) of the moral imperative "requires that the maxims be

chosen as though they should hold as universal laws of nature".“Always do those actions that you would

approve of everyone doing.” One interpretation of the first formulation is called the "universalisability test”.

An agent's maxim, according to Kant, is his "subjective principle of human actions": that is, what the agent

believes is his reason to act.

The universalisability test has five steps:

i. 1. Find the agent's maxim (i.e., an action paired with its motivation). Take for example the

declaration "I will lie for personal benefit." Lying is the action; the motivation is to fulfil

some sort of desire. Paired together, they form the maxim.

ii. 2. Imagine a possible world in which everyone in a similar position to the real-world agent

followed that maxim.

iii. 3. Decide whether any contradictions or irrationalities arise in the possible world as a

result of following the maxim.

iv. 4. If a contradiction or irrationality arises, acting on that maxim is not allowed in the real

world.

v. 5. If there is no contradiction, then acting on that maxim is permissible, and in some

instances required.

2. The second formulation (or Formula of the End in Itself) holds that "the rational being, as by its nature an

end and thus as an end in itself, must serve in every maxim as the condition restricting all merely relative

and arbitrary ends. “Always treat people (yourself included) as ends, and never as means,” i.e., treat people

as having value in themselves, not just as having value for you; i.e., treat people with respect. Do not “use”

people!

3. The third formulation (Formula of Autonomy) is a synthesis of the first two and is the basis for the "complete

determination of all maxims". It says "that all maxims which stem from autonomous legislation ought to

harmonize with a possible realm of ends as with a realm of nature. “Always follow those principles which

your own nature as a rational being judges to be universally true.” Do not follow the principles that some

authority imposes on you from the outside, but those principles that you know a priori to be true.

Examples

To understand better, let us look into this example

A child is drowning. Three expert swimmers (Amit, John, Tarun) jump into the water to attempt to rescue the child.

Amit knows that the child belongs to a well-to-do family. He has good reason to think that if he succeeds in saving

the child, he will be richly rewarded. He quickly calculates that the potential reward will be worth the risk. He acts

only on that motivation.

John loves people, and feels compassion when they suffer. Realizing that the drowning will cause a great deal of

sorrow that he has the ability to probably prevent, he risks his life to save the child.

Tarun realizes that since he has the ability, he has a duty to try and save the drowning child. He is not concerned

with whether there is a payoff for him, nor is he motivated by feelings of compassion. He decides to save the child

but only because he realizes that he has a duty to do so.

Kant says that only one of the three is doing the action on the basis of a good will, and only that person has the

correct motivation.

Amit’s motivation: “Self-interest.”

John’s motivation: “Benevolence.”

Tarun’s motivation: “Duty.”

Only Tarun has the proper ethical motivation. Both Amit and John are motivated by “inclination.” An inclination is a

feeling that they are experiencing at the moment. Amit is motivated by greed, John by compassion.

Morally worthy actions cannot be based on transitory feelings, but must be based on a regard for universally true and

necessary moral principles!

Critical Analysis

The central principle of Kant's ethical theory is what he calls the Categorical Imperative. He offers several

formulations of this principle, which he regards as all saying the same thing. (In fact, contrary to what Kant thinks,

they seem to say different things.) Two of these formulations are especially important for our purposes.

The Formula for universal law

First, there is the formulation Kant regards as most basic: "act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time

will that it should be a universal law." As we discussed in class, the test for the morality of an action that Kant

expresses here is something like the following. Suppose that I am trying to decide whether or not to perform a

particular action, say A. Then I must go through the following steps:

1. Formulate the maxim of the action. That is, figure out what general principle you would be acting on if you were

to perform the action. The maxim will have something like this form: "in situations of sort S, I will do A." (For example:

"in situations in which I am thirsty and there is water available, I will drink it," or "in situations in which I need money

and know I can't pay it back, I will falsely promise to pay it back.")

2. Universalize the maxim. That is, regard it not as a personal policy but as a principle for everyone. A universalized

maxim will look something like this: "in situations of sort S, everyone will do A." (For example: "in situations in which

anyone is thirsty and water is available, that person will drink it," or "in situations in which anyone needs money and

knows he or she cannot pay it back, he or she will falsely promise to pay it back."

3. Determine whether the universalized maxim could be a universal law, that is, whether it is possible for

everyone to act as the universalized maxim requires. (Our first example seems harmless, but Kant argues that the

second maxim could not be a universal law: if everyone started making false promises, the institution of promising

would disappear, so no one would be able to make a false promise, since there would be no such thing as a promise

to falsely make.) If the universalized maxim could not be a universal law, you have a perfect obligation not to perform

the action.

4. But perhaps the maxim could be a universal law. Then we need to ask a further question: could we will that the

maxim be a universal law? (For example, Kant thinks that it could be the case that everyone refused to ever help

others in distress, but that we could not will that this be the case because that would mean no one would help us

when we were in distress. See his fourth example.) If the maxim could be a universal law, but you could not will that it

be a universal law, you have an imperfect duty not to perform the action.

The formula for end in itself

The second formulation that is important for us is the formula of the end in itself: roughly, "act so as to treat people

always as ends in themselves, never as mere means." The idea here is that everyone, insofar as he or she is a

rational being, is intrinsically valuable; we ought therefore to treat people as having a value all their own rather than

merely as useful tools or devices by means of which we can satisfy our own goals or purposes. Other people are

valuable not merely insofar as they can serve our purposes; they are also valuable in themselves. Note that the

formula does not rule out all cases of using someone else to satisfy my own desires or projects. That would seem to

eliminate a very large number of human interactions! Treating others as mere means, treating them only as devices

we can use to help us satisfy our desires, seems a clear enough notion; certain kinds of corporate and sexual

relationships seem like clear examples of it. But what would it be to treat someone as an end in him or herself? Kant's

idea seems to be that we treat someone as an end only insofar as we act toward him or her in a way that he or she

can understand as appropriate or justified: we should be able to explain our reasons in such a way that the person

will see the reasonableness of acting in the way we propose. Thus, for example, Kant writes: "he who is thinking of

making a lying promise to others will see at once that he would be using another man merely as a mean, without the

latter containing at the same time the end in himself. For he whom I propose by such a promise to use for my own

purposes cannot possibly assent to my mode of acting towards him, and therefore cannot himself contain the end of

this action."

What is ruled out by this formulation, therefore, appears to be actions which treat others in such a way that they do

not have the opportunity to consent to what we are doing.  So we treat others as mere means when we force them to

do something, or when we obtain their consent through coercion or dishonesty.

The major weaknesses Kant’s categorical imperative include

Kant does not allow for any exceptions to his principle of morality. If it is immoral to lie in one situation it is

immoral to lie in all situations. Telling someone they look nice even though it isn’t true is immoral even if it

saves hurt feelings and human relationships.

According to Kant’s philosophy, principles can conflict and in order to adhere to one involves the violation of

another. For example, Kant’s maxim against insincere promises and his maxim that we should always aid

someone in distress. There are situations where making an insincere promise could help someone – suppose

that your family will starve to death unless you obtain food immediately and a billionaire offers to provide the

food if you will promise repayment within 24 hours. Should you aid your family and make a promise you have

no intention of keeping or should you let your family die? Kant’s philosophy does not allow for exceptions and

so when principles are in conflict it leads to a contradiction.

Kant’s philosophy fails because it concentrates only on the reason for an action and does not consider the

results of an action. There are numerous examples when people have been well-intentioned but the resulting

consequences of their actions are terrible.

o Consider a parent who has the intention of easing a sick child’s pain. The parent gives the child a

large dosage of medicine to make them feel better, but the child overdoses and dies. Is this act

moral just because the parent intended on helping a child in distress? Clearly not; the outcome of

the act is as important as the intention – the parent would probably be charged with manslaughter

for their action – not their good intention.

It does not allow for prioritizing options available.

Relevance Today

The theory proposed by Kant can be widely applied to the stake holder analysis. For example any decision taken by

company should be considered for will affect the shareholder’s interest, what would be the decision makers

expectation had they been a stake holder, and will they take this decision every time. In another perspective, in

present scenario there are certain firms, which claim that they are not unethical for the reason there is no law

preventing their actions and claiming their activities to be permissible. For example, employees should be given

humanitarian consideration in case of sickness, unhealthiness, etc. The workers should not be allowed to work in

unhealthy environment even if there is no law preventing it. Such thoughts have to be changed.

Conclusion

Immanuel Kant focused his thoughts mainly on considering each activity undertaken by human being to be a

universal one. There should not be any inclined motive of self interest. This can help individuals and also businesses

to make more logical decision considering everybody’s welfare. Everyone should be driven by the universal law.

KARL MARXS

Karl Marx was revolutionary, sociologist, historian, and economist. He published (with Friedrich Engels) Manifest der

Kommunistischen Partei (1848), commonly known as The Communist Manifesto, the most celebrated pamphlet in the

history of the socialist movement. He also was the author of the movement’s most important book, Das Kapital.

These writings and others by Marx and Engels form the basis of the body of thought and belief known as Marxism.

Marx was a brilliant scholar, economist, and philosopher. After studying law and philosophy in Prussia (now

Germany), he became a journalist. His radical ideas led to successive exiles in Paris, Brussels, and finally London.

There, Marx spent years reading, researching, and writing in the British Museum. With his close friend Friedrich

Engels, he wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848, followed by numerous other works, concluding with the three-

volume Das Kapital, the last two volumes of which Engels wrote from Marx's rough notes and manuscripts. Although

he was largely ignored by scholars in his own lifetime, his social, economic and political ideas gained rapid

acceptance in the socialist movement after his death in 1883.

About the Author:

Karl Heinrich Marx was born into a comfortable middle-class home in Trier on May 5, 1818. He came from a long line

of rabbis on both sides of his family and at the age of seventeen, enrolled in the Faculty of Law at the University of

Bonn.

Marx became a member of the Young Hegelian movement which produced a radical critique of Christianity and by

implication, the liberal opposition to the Prussian autocracy. He gradually moved into journalism and, in October 1842,

became the editor of the influential ‘Rheinische Zeitung’, a liberal newspaper backed by industrialists. Marx's articles,

particularly those on economic questions, forced the Prussian government to close the paper. Marx then immigrated

to France and during his first few months in Paris, became a communist and set down his views in a series of writings

known as the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844), which remained unpublished until the 1930s. In the

Manuscripts, Marx outlined a humanist conception of communism, influenced by the philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach

and based on a contrast between the alienated nature of labour under capitalism and a communist society in which

human beings freely developed their nature in cooperative production.

It was in Paris that Marx developed his lifelong partnership with Friedrich Engels. Marx was expelled from Paris at the

end of 1844 and with Engels, moved to Brussels where he remained for the next three years. While in Brussels Marx

devoted himself to an intensive study of history and elaborated what came to be known as the materialist conception

of history. This he developed in a manuscript, of which the basic thesis was that "the nature of individuals depends on

the material conditions determining their production."

At the same time Marx was composing The German Ideology, he also wrote a polemic (The Poverty of Philosophy)

against the idealistic socialism of P. J. Proudhon. He joined the Communist League, an organization of German

émigré workers with its centre in London of which Marx and Engels became the major theoreticians.

Marx settled in London in the year 1849 and rejoined the Communist League and wrote two pamphlets on the 1848

revolution in France and its aftermath, The Class Struggles in France and The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.

During the first half of the 1850s, he married and had 6 children and worked as a foreign correspondent for the New

York Daily Tribune. During the last decade of his life, Marx's health declined and he was incapable of sustained effort

that had so characterized his previous work. However, he did manage to comment substantially on contemporary

politics, particularly in Germany and Russia. Marx died March 14, 1883 and was buried at Highgate Cemetery in North

London.

ABOUT HIS BOOKS:

The Communist Manifesto

It begins with the assertion, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Marx argued

that if you are to understand human history you must not see it as the story of great individuals or the conflict

between states. Instead, you must see it as the story of social classes and their struggles with each other.

Marx explained that social classes had changed over time but in the 19th century the most important classes were

the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. By the term bourgeoisie Marx meant the owners of the factories and the raw

materials which are process.

Marx believed that these two classes are not merely different from each other, but also have different interests. He

went on to argue that the conflict between these two classes would eventually lead to revolution and the triumph of

the proletariat. With the disappearance of the bourgeoisie as a class, there would no longer be a class sovietised in

them.

A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

This book was published in 1859. In the book Marx argued that the superstructure of law, politics, religion, art and

philosophy was determined by economic forces. "It is not", he wrote, "the consciousness of men that determines their

existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

Das kapital

The central driving force of capitalism, according to Marx, was in the exploitation and alienation of labour. The

ultimate source of capitalist profits and surplus was the unpaid labour of wage labourers. Employers could

appropriate the new output value because of their ownership of the productive capital assets—protected by the state.

By producing output as capital for the employers, the workers constantly reproduced the condition of capitalism by

their labour.

RELEVENCE:

Karl Marx theories and philosophy is still relevant today and is followed by many countries worldwide

1) Minimum Wage Act 19 : This act of providing equal opportunity and fair wages to labour class is based on

the concepts provided by Marx.

2) ESI Act 1948: This act provides insurance and protection to the employee and is based on Marxian theory.

3) Employee welfare: Marx gave the concept of financial and physiological safety to the employee.

4) Might is Right: The Marxism principle of might equals right can be analysed from 2 different dimensions. The

first approach, “might makes right”, emphasizes the importance of authority for creating liberal peace,

especially the role played by a democratic hegemony and liberal major powers.

Eg: The major powers of the world like the United States have a key role in maintaining global peace. Also the heads

of every nation use the powers that are vested upon them to ensure the rights of its citizens.

The second approach, “right makes might”, traces the evolution of the systemic democratic peace to shifts in morality

and liberal norms.

Eg: The awakening of people for their need for independent existence in countries like Namibia and India made them

cry for their rights and thereby create an independent nation and political system.

‘Might is right’ concept is also used in Darwinism concept of survival of the fittest. The mightier will overcome the

lesser strong and thereby would survive and the others would perish.

An illustration for might is right is the American invasion of Iraq. The violent attacks on the people of Iraq under the

pretence of removing terrorism have been justified because of their might as a global super power.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS:

Criticisms of Marxism have come from the political left as well as the political right

Marx and Engels never dedicated much work to show how exactly a communist economy would function, leaving

Marxism, at least in its classical form, a "negative ideology," concerned primarily with criticism of the status quo. Later

generations of Marxists have attempted to fill in the gap, resulting in several different and competing Marxist views of

the way a communist society should be organized

Conclusion

Marx's contribution to our understanding of society has been enormous. Many of his expectations about the future

course of the revolutionary movement have, so far, failed to materialize. However, his stress on the economic factor

in society and his analysis of the class structure in class conflict has had an enormous influence on history,

sociology, and study of human culture

MACHIAVELLI

Among the most original thinkers of the Renaissance is a brilliant and slightly tragic figure, Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-

1527). Throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, his name was synonymous with deviousness, cruelty,

and willfully destructive rationality.

Machiavelli was the first major Western thinker to discuss politics and social phenomena in his own terms without

recourse to ethics or jurisprudence. He did so by observing the phenomena of politics, reading all that has been

written on the subject and describing political systems in his own terms.

About Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527)

Niccolò Machiavelli was born on May 3, 1469 in Florence as a lawyer’s son. He was educated according to the

humanist ideals of the Renaissance with the focus on Latin and the classics.

His life spanned the greatest period of cultural achievement in Florence to its ultimate downfall. This period was

marked by political instability, fear, invasion, and intrigue as the tiny states of Italy were pulled into the politics and

wars of Europe by the two large states, Spain and France.

In his lifetime, he saw the efflorescence of Florentine culture and political power under the brilliant political genius of

Lorenzo de'Medici. He also witnessed the downfall of the Medici power as Lorenzo's son and successor, Piero

de'Medici, was thrown from power by the Dominican monk, Savonarola who set up a true Florentine Republic. When

Savonarola was himself thrown from power and burned, a second Republic was set up under Soderini in 1498.

In 1498, Niccolò Machiavelli began his career as an active politician under the titles of Secretary of the Second

Chancery and Secretary to the Ten of Liberty and Peace, of this new republic. He was engaged in diplomatic

missions through France and Germany as well as Italy. After more than a decade of public service, he was driven

from his post in 1512 when The Republic was crushed by the Spanish who installed the Medici's as rulers of Florence

once again. The Medici imprisoned and tortured him in 1513 and eventually banished him to his country estate at San

Casciano. His repeated efforts to win the confidence and approval of the new regime were unsuccessful and he was

forced into retirement. It was during his exile in San Casciano that he wrote his principle works: the Discourse on

Livy, The Prince, The Art of War, Florentine Histories and Mandragola (a play).

The Price is about principalities where as the Discourses is about republics. The Prince uses a very pragmatic

approach, even to the point of cynicism, to political action. Whereas in Discourses, Machiavelli talks about the internal

structure of the republic, reasons about matters of warfare and finally returns to the theme of The Prince, individual

leadership. The Florentine Histories is his longest work. It includes the period between years 375 and 1492 but the

main focus is on the events that took place after 1434. The Art of War is a dialogue on military affairs.

Theory on business ethics

Niccolo Machiavelli, a political philosopher, is generally accepted as an early contributor to the scientific revolution

because he looked at power and the nature of sovereignty through the eyes of a scientist, focused completely on the

goal without regard for religion and morals and ethics. Machiavelli separated ethics from politics. He considered a

successful ruler to be above morality, since the safety and expansion of the state are the supreme objectives.

According to him, the ends justify the means.

His theory can be explained with the following examples :

Eg. The Prince (Il Principe) is Machiavelli’s most famous book. Machiavelli makes observations about the actual

conduct of political leaders and looks at whether or not they achieve the results they set out to achieve. He then uses

these considerations as a basis of practical recommendations and these recommendations frequently go against

common morality.

This book offers practical advice on how to rule a city like sixteenth-century Florence. Its overall theme is that the

successful prince must exhibit virtù [variously translated as "strength," "skill," or "prowess"] in both favorable and

adverse circumstances.

Machiavelli believes that morality has its place among regular men, however since a prince is not a regular man, he

must ascribe to a sort of princely morality. The ultimate goal of princely morality is not justice, or simply being a ‘good

person’ but it is the effective governing of the state. This can only be accomplished through the acquisition and

preservation of power. Thus according to Machiavelli, there are two ways of contending: one by using laws and the

other by force. The first is appropriate for men and the second is for animals but because the former is often

ineffective, one must have recourse to the latter. Therefore, a ruler must know well how to imitate beasts as well as

employing properly human means.

Machiavelli is an archetypical realist. He understands that the prince is living and governing in the real world and not

some ideal city. This means that the prince should work within the laws and within traditional conceptions of morality

whenever possible. However to be a truly effective ruler, the prince must be prepared to step outside these bound.

Machiavelli feels that failing to be cruel in certain situations is much less merciful in the long run. He believes that

small acts of cruelty are preferred to mass suffering. In the case of Cesare Borgia, Machiavelli actually spends five

pages detailing the atrocities committed by Borgia and then says “having reviewed all the actions of the Duke I would

not wish to criticize him; rather, he seems to me worthy to be held up as a model.”

According to Machiavelli, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when of the two, either must be dispensed with

because People are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly and covetous. They can’t be trusted. They are usually willing to

throw out moral concerns if it is to their advantage. However he realizes that while it is important to be feared, it is

equally important not to incur the hatred of the citizens otherwise no amount of cruelty, force or beastly actions will

save the prince.

In Machiavelli’s career and in his other works, most notably The Discourses, he puts forth a view in favor of a

Republic without corruption and with rights for the citizens.  He is, in essence, arguing that such a condition cannot be

achieved without recognizing the reality of politics, the need for cunning, deception, and sometimes injustice and

violence.  The only way is to learn not to be moral but to be ruthless when you must.

Critical Analysis

Machiavelli has a negative view on human nature and in his work, he argues that the social benefits of stability and

security can be achieved even in the face of moral corruption. According to him, the ruler needs to acquire a good

reputation while actually doing whatever wrong seems necessary in the circumstances. Thus, rulers must seem to be

generous while spending their money wisely, appear to be compassionate while ruling their armies cruelly and act

with great cunning while cultivating a reputation for integrity. This is why Machiavelli is criticized by many for

suggesting fraud and treachery as an acceptable tactic. The Elizabethan English were the harshest critics,

condemning him as "a truly evil man" .The Shakespearean view of the man is the “murderous Machiavel”.

The popular belief about ‘The Prince’ is that it is just a manual on how to gain power by any means necessary, with

no regard to how you should use that power.

However one feels that Machiavelli is greatly misunderstood. It is important to understand the context in which

Machiavelli wrote his books. His experiences as a young man are reflected in his works.

In the early 1500’s the town of Pistoia was under the Florentine sphere of influence but a rivalry between the

Cancellieri and Panciatichi families started riots and unrest. At that time, Florence was a republic and Niccolo

Machiavelli was Chancellor of the Florence Republic. He advised the leaders of the republic that Florence should

avoid anarchy so close to the city by going in with its overwhelming power and simply taking control from the

Pistoians. However in Florence, public opinion was against such a move.  They feared a reputation for cruelty and

instead tried to simply continue to broker a deal.  The result was a civil war and unrest in 1502-03 where people were

hacked in the streets and mass killing and anarchy occurred. Thus Machiavelli believes that small acts of cruelty are

preferred to mass suffering and points to the Florentines and asserts if they would have punished the ring leaders of

the factions involved in the riots, the disturbances would not have degraded into general massacres. For the latter

usually harm a whole community whereas the executions ordered by a ruler harm only specific individuals.

Hence through his works, Machiavelli deals with the realities of deception and power politics. Machiavelli’s emphasis

on political expediency was not in the service of the personal power of a politician or leader but in allowing that leader

to do what is necessary for the sake of the people. Much of what is considered objectionable in The Prince is clearly

laid out by Machiavelli to be emergency actions that should be employed cautiously and only when the survival of the

state requires such action.

According to him, innocent people should not be executed but at times it might be necessary.  For Machiavelli the

ends justify the means, but the ends themselves are not simply power for power’s sake.   Rather, anarchy must be

averted and a Prince must protect his subjects and create conditions for stability, peace and prosperity.  The ends are

noble but due to human nature – greed, avarice, and weakness – one needs to do whatever it takes to achieve those

ends. Otherwise the moral man will lose out to a ruthless one.

Relevance today

Machiavelli's model of city-state politics 500 years ago does not give us the degree of confidence necessary for our

acceptance of his conclusions today. Even the concepts of power and military force have changed drammatically

since 1945.

However drawing a connection between Machiavelli’s states and modern day corporations is not difficult since the

psychology of human behavior is still the same.

Machiavelli suggests that when an acquired kingdom is difficult to manage, the prince should "come to live in it".

Often during a major merger or acquisition it is necessary to relocate the corporate offices for just the reasons

Machiavelli indicates.

Machiavelli encourages the prince to avoid being hated, if possible. This is good advice for any decision-maker.

Indeed, success in modern business usually concerns the ability to manage who are your friends and who are your

enemies.

The use of mercenaries is soundly criticized in The Prince. Machiavelli describes mercenaries as useless and

dangerous. His belief that a leader should maintain an army rather than use mercenaries can be compared to the

current trend towards utilizing temporary workers. Machiavelli’s advice to today’s manager would be to cultivate his

own employees and be extremely cautious in utilizing the popular temporary services.

Machiavelli also states that a Minister thinking more of himself can never be a good Minister or one that can be

trusted. To keep his Minister good, the Prince should be considerate of him, dignifying him, enriching him, binding

him to himself by benefits and sharing with him the honours as well as the burdens. Thus Machiavelli presents good

advice concerning the hiring of senior employees. Mutiny, back-stabbing, and deceit in the quest for individual gain

are too common in today’s business world. Selecting and grooming proper lieutenants is as important for today’s

executives as for Machiavelli’s prince.

Machiavelli’s guidance for princes to choose a side, rather than remain neutral when neighbors are at war, is

particularly pertinent because if he fails to do so, he will become the prey of the victor to the satisfaction and delight of

the vanquished, for the victor dislikes doubtful friends and the vanquished will have nothing to say. Clearly, a modern

executive would do well to consider the attitudes of all the players involved in a conflict and act in such a manner as

to preserve and enhance his own power and influence.

Though all of these axioms are quite valuable for today’s executive, Machiavelli did fail to acknowledge the value of

dependability and that systematic deceit, treachery, and violence will usually result in the ultimate demise of the

perpetrator.

Conclusion

Machiavelli’s ideas can’t be ignored or dismissed. He captures an aspect of politics that existed in Italy in the 16 th

century, and exists yet today.  The challenge to idealists and humanists is to not simply deny or reject Machiavelli, but

confront what gives his ideas power centuries after they were written and think seriously about what it might take to

have a world where political expediency does not require amorality.  The challenge of the realist is clear and present:

to talk about the “ought” question while ignoring the “is” question risks self-delusion. The use of unethical practices to

do a good deed, has got both positive and negative sides to it and different viewpoints can be used to justify the

same. I personally feel that it all depends on the circumstance that the person is in and that in today’s world, one has

to be shrewd enough even to do right things at the right time and the right place.

UTILITARIANISM

BASIC DEFINITION

Actions are right if they produce more good than bad when the consequences to all affected parties are considered.

Otherwise, they are wrong.

Jeremy Bentham & John Stuart Mill are the founders of the concept of Utilitarianism. Although various interpretations

of the concept exist, the basic view holds that an action is judged as right or good on the basis of its consequences.

The ends of an action justify the means taken to reach those ends. As a consequentialist principle, the moral

authority that drives utilitarianism is the calculated consequences, or results, of an action, regardless of other

principles that determine the means or motivations for taking the action. Utilitarianism includes

1. An action is morally right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people

2. An action is morally right it the net benefits over costs are greatest for a will affected compared with the net

benefits of all other possible choices

3. An action is morally right if its benefits are greatest for each individual and if these benefits outweigh the

costs and benefits of the alternatives.

THE AUTHOR(s)

Jeremy Bentham was an English utilitarian philosopher and social reformer. He first attained attention as a critic of

the leading legal theorist in eighteenth century England, Sir William Blackstone. Bentham's campaign for social and

political reforms in all areas, most notably the criminal law, had its theoretical basis in his  utilitarianism, expounded in

his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, a work written in 1780 but not published until 1789.

Bentham's ambition in life was to create a "Pannomion", a complete utilitarian code of law. Bentham not only

proposed many legal and social reforms, but also expounded an underlying moral principle on which they should be

based. In it he formulated the principle of utility, which approves of an action in so far as an action has an overall

tendency to promote the greatest amount of happiness. Happiness is identified with pleasure and the absence of

pain. To work out the overall tendency of an action, Bentham sketched a felicific ("happiness-making") calculus,

which takes into account the intensity, duration, likelihood, extent, etc of pleasures and pains.

John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher, political theorist, political economist, civil servant and Member of

Parliament, was an influential liberal thinker of the 19th century whose works on liberty justified freedom of the

individual in opposition to unlimited state control.[2] He was an exponent of utilitarianism, an ethical theory developed

by Jeremy Bentham, although his conception of it was very different from Bentham's. He clearly set forth the

premises of the scientific method. From 1830 to his death, he tried to persuade the British public of the necessity of a

scientific approach to understanding social, political and economic change while not neglecting the insights of poets

and other imaginative writers. His Utilitarianism 1861 remains the classic defence of the view that we ought to aim at

maximizing the welfare of all sentient creatures, and that welfare consists of their happiness. He insisted that

happiness was to be assessed not merely by quantity but by quality.

WHAT IS GOOD?

Pleasure

Absence of pain

Happiness

Satisfaction of preferences

Well-being

ABOUT UTILITARIANISM AND ITS TYPES

“The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility or, the Greatest Happiness Principle holds that actions

are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they promote the reverse of happiness. By

happiness, is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure” – John

Stuart Mill in Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism can thus be characterised as a quantitative and reductionist approach to ethics. It can be contrasted

with deontological ethics(which do not regard the consequences of an act as the sole determinant of its moral worth)

and virtue ethics (which focuses on character), as well as with other varieties of consequentialism. In the notion of

consequences the Utilitarian includes all of the good and bad produced by the act, whether arising after the act has

been performed or during its performance. If the difference in the consequences of alternative acts is not great, some

Utilitarian’s do not regard the choice between them as a moral issue. According to Mill, acts should be classified as

morally right or wrong only if the consequences are of such significance that a person would wish to see the agent

compelled, not merely persuaded and exhorted, to act in the preferred manner.

Act utilitarianism states that, when faced with a choice, we must first consider the likely consequences of potential

actions and, from that, choose to do what we believe will generate most pleasure. The rule utilitarian, on the other

hand, begins by looking at potential rules of action.

Rule utilitarianism has been criticized for advocating general rules that will in some specific circumstances clearly

decrease happiness if followed. Never to kill another human being may seem to be a good rule, but it could make

self-defence against malevolent aggressors very difficult. However there is within rule utilitarianism a distinction

between the strictness and absolutism of this particular branch of utilitarianism.

Negative utilitarianism (NU) requires us to promote the least amount of evil or harm, or to prevent the greatest

amount of suffering for the greatest number. Total utilitarianism advocates measuring the utility of a population

based on the total utility of its members. According to Derek Parfit, this type of utilitarianism falls victim to

the Repugnant Conclusion, whereby large numbers of people with very low but non-negative utility values can be

seen as a better goal than a population of a less extreme size living in comfort.

Preference Utilitarianism, this type of utilitarianism defines the good to be maximised as the fulfilment of people’s

preferences. The right action remains that which produces the best consequences but the best consequences are

those that satisfy personal preferences and can be a variety of goods/values besides pleasure. This is not pluralist

utilitarianism, which recognises several important values

Utilitarianism also differs from ethical theories that make the rightness or wrongness of an act dependent upon the

motive of the agent; for, according to the Utilitarian, it is possible for the right thing to be done from a bad motive.

Bentham believed that only in terms of a Utilitarian interpretation do words such as “ought,” “right,” and “wrong”

have meaning and that whenever anyone attempts to combat the principle of utility, he does so with reasons drawn

from the principle itself.

CRITICISM

Aggregating utility

John Rawls gives a critique of Utilitarianism in A Theory Of Justice that rejects the idea that the happiness of two

distinct persons could be meaningfully counted together. He argues that this entails treating a group of many as if it

were a single sentient entity, mistakenly ignoring the separation of consciousness. The aggregation of utility becomes

futile as both pain and happiness are intrinsic to and inseparable from the consciousness in which they are felt,

rendering impossible the task of adding up the various pleasures of multiple individuals.

Predicting consequences

Utilitarians, however, are not required to have perfect knowledge; indeed, certain knowledge of consequences is

impossible because consequences are in the unexperienced future. Utilitarians simply try their best to maximise

happiness (or other forms of utility) and, to do this, make their best estimates of the consequences. If the

consequences of a decision are particularly unclear, it may make sense to follow an ethical rule which has promoted

the most utility in the past. Utilitarians also note that people trying to further their own interests frequently run into

situations in which the consequences of their decisions are very unclear. This does not mean, however, that they are

unable to make a decision; much the same applies to utilitarianism.

Importance of intentions

Utilitarianism has been criticised for looking only at the results of actions, not at the desires or intentions that motivate

them, which many consider important, too. An action intended to cause harm but which inadvertently causes good

would be judged equal to the good result of an action done with the best intentions. Many utilitarians argue that

utilitarianism applies not only to results but also to desires and dispositions, praise and blame, and rules, institutions

and punishment. Bad intentions may cause harm (to the agent and to others) even if they do not result in bad acts.

Once this is recognised, supporters argue that utilitarianism becomes a much more complex, and rich, moral theory,

and may align far more closely with our moral intuitions.

Human rights

Act and rule utilitarians differ in how they treat human rights themselves. Under rule utilitarianism, a human right can

easily be considered a moral rule. Act utilitarians, on the other hand, do not accept human rights as moral principles

in and of themselves, but that does not mean that they reject them altogether: first, most act utilitarians, as explained

above, would agree that acts such as enslavement and genocide always cause great unhappiness and very little

happiness; second, human rights could be considered rules of thumb so that, although torture might be acceptable

under some circumstances, as a rule it is immoral; and, finally, act utilitarians often support human rights in a legal

sense because utilitarians support laws that cause more good than harm.

Lack of convincing proof

Another criticism of utilitarianism is that it is not proven, either by science or by logic, to be the correct ethical system.

Supporters claim that this is common to all ethical schools, and indeed the system of logic itself, and will always

remain so unless the problem of the regress argument, or at least the is-ought problem, is satisfactorily resolved. It

might instead be argued that almost all political arguments about a future society use an unspoken utilitarian

principle, all sides claiming that their proposed solution is the one that increases human happiness the most.

Individual interests vs. a greater sum of lesser interests

Critics have also asked why one should follow utilitarianism instead of ethical egoism. The legal system might punish

behavior that harms others, but this incentive is not active in a situation where one can personally gain by breaking it

without punishment. One egoist, however, may propose means to maximise self-interest that conflict with the means

proposed by another egoist. As a result, it behooves them to compromise with one another in order to avoid conflict,

out of self-interest. The means proposed may incidentally coincide with those prescribed by utilitarianism, but the

foundational ethical imperative would not, of course, be utilitarian.

Infinitarian paralysis

According to most modern cosmology theories the universe is infinite. If it is true, then there is also an infinite number

of people and therefor infinite amount of pain and pleasure. However, we can affect only finite amount of pain and

pleasure. Yet an infinite quantity can not be changed by adding or subtracting a finite quantity.

According to Nick Bostrom, this means that "every possible act of ours therefore has the same net effect on the total

amount of good and bad in a canonically infinite world: none whatsoever."He further states that we can not use an

ethical theory which combined with our current best scientific guesses means that it is always ethically indifferent

what we do.

Virtue ethics

Both teleological and deontological ethical theories are called ‘deontic’ or action-based theories of morality because

they focus entirely upon the actions which a person performs. Those theories focus on the question, "Which action

should I choose?" Virtue ethics, however, take a very different perspective.

Virtue-based ethical theories place less emphasis on which rules people should follow and instead focus on helping

people develop good character traits, such as kindness and generosity. These character traits will, in turn, allow a

person to make the correct decisions later on in life. Virtue theorists also emphasize the need for people to learn how

to break bad habits of character, like greed or anger. These are called vices and stand in the way of becoming a good

person.

Virtue ethics' founding fathers are Plato and, more particularly Aristotle (its roots in Chinese philosophy are even

more ancient) and it persisted as the dominant approach in Western moral philosophy until at least the

Enlightenment. It suffered a momentary eclipse during the nineteenth century but re-emerged in the late 1950's in

Anglo-American philosophy.

Humans can have two kinds of virtue:

Intellectual virtues: these relate particularly to our professions, i.e., they will differ for a truck driver,

cook, lawyer, farmer, doctor, etc.

Moral virtues: This virtue is common to all humans, but it may vary in degree according to our

capacities. Moral virtue “is the outcome of habit; its name, ethike, is derived from ethos, habit. So

the difference between one and another training in habits in our childhood is not a light manner, but

important, or rather, all important.”

Both intellectual and moral virtues are needed for us to achieve happiness (eudaemonia)

People have a natural capacity for good character, but it must be developed through constant practice.

Good leaders (parent and civic leaders) are necessary to guide us in the development of good habits.

Happiness

Good Character

Good Habits

Good Actions

Good thoughts

Virtuous thoughts lead to good acts. Virtuous acts (following the Mean) can lead to good habits. Good habits

make for a good character. A good character can be happy. Business and Professional Ethics application:

We should ask, “Will this act help lead me to be the person I should be? Will I be a person of good

character”

People have a natural capacity for good character, but it must be developed through constant practice. Good leaders

(parent and civic leaders) are necessary to guide us in the development of good habits

Virtue ethics emphasizes the character of the agent than the rules or consequences as the key element of

the ethical thinking .

Virtue ethics , consequentialism and deontology are talked in the same frame of reference

Consequentialism - according to this theory the result of an act forms the basis for the judgement.

Deontology – according to this theory the rightness or the wrongness of an act is judged by the character of

he act .

To mark the difference between these three lets take an example :

According to Consequentialism , lying can be acceptable if the it results in any social benefit to people .

According to Deontology , lying is always wrong as the character of an act like lying is defined immoral and

unjust .

According to Virtue ethics , there will be less focus on lying and more consideration will be paid to the

character and moral behavior of the person in question who ends up lying .

Virtue ethics theories form a part of the predominant contemporary normative ethical theories .

In Virtue ethics , the person lives in the state of EUDAMONIA if he practices virtues . EUDAMONIA is

defined as the state of happiness and blissfulness .

Virtues are defined as the habit / quality that enables the bearer to succeed his purpose . For eg. The

virtue of a knife is sharpness , the virtue of race horse is speed .

In the similar fashion Aristotle categorized human virtues as moral and intellectual

There as 8 moral virtues :

Prudence Justice

Fortitude Courage

Liberality Magnificence

Magnaminity Temperence

Intellectual virtues are basically of 9 types but the most important one is wisdom Even the wisdom virtue is

further fragmented in two :

Theoratical Wisdom

Practical Wisdom

Application of virtue ethics :

Helps in the formation of a balanced approach for capitalism in capitalist societies .

Also provides rationale and foundation for peace education .

In the frame of business ethics the most common manifestations of virtue ethics is business statement of values

In business organizations , rules and regulations reflect these values

For eg. In Levis , the code of conduct for the employees form the deontological part whereas the statement of values

form the part of virtue ethics .

Following are the values in their value statement :

Empathy

Innovation

Integrity

Courage

Criticism of the theory :

There involves a certain level of difficulty in establishing the nature of virtue .

It means that different people or cultures have different opinions on what constitute a virtue .

The virtue ethics school of thought does not focus on what sorts of actions are morally permitted and which

ones not but focuses on what qualities someone ought to have to foster to become a good person .

RIGHTS ETHICS: A MORAL AND LEGAL ENTITLEMENT BASED APPROACH

In the rights ethical theory the rights set forth by a society are protected and given the highest priority. Rights are

considered to be ethically correct and valid since a large or ruling population endorses them. Individuals may also

bestow rights upon others if they have the ability and resources to do so. For example, a person may say that her

friend may borrow the car for the afternoon. The friend who was given the ability to borrow the car now has a right to

the car in the afternoon.

A major complication of this theory on a larger scale, however, is that one must decipher what the characteristics of a

right are in a society. The society has to determine what rights it wants to uphold and give to its citizens. In order for a

society to determine what rights it wants to enact, it must decide what the society's goals and ethical priorities are.

Therefore, in order for the rights theory to be useful, it must be used in conjunction with another ethical theory that will

consistently explain the goals of the society (1). For example in America people have the right to choose their religion

because this right is upheld in the Constitution. One of the goals of the founding fathers' of America was to uphold

this right to freedom of religion. However, under Hitler's reign in Germany, the Jews were persecuted for their religion

because Hitler decided that Jews were detrimental to Germany's future success. The American government upholds

freedom of religion while the Nazi government did not uphold it and, instead, chose to eradicate the Jewish religion

and those who practiced it.

Throughout history many ethical theories have developed. Each individual must choose one, or a combination of

them.   

Rights-based ethics -- based on the tradition of Locke and Hobbes, is a deontological theory. This theory is based on

upholding an individual's human or legal rights, such as the rights to privacy and ownership of property. 

In the philosophical arena, rights are split up into positive and negative rights. Negative rights refer to freedom from

outside interference in certain activities which are defined by the social norm of the moment. Such rights are freedom

of speech, the right to liberty and privacy. Positive rights "are those that give one what is needed to freely pursue his

or her interests. Such rights are right to health care, education and other similar things.

Contractarianism is a rights-based approach to morality and ethics. According to this approach, morality is based on

the social contact between government and its citizens. This contract provides certain inalienable rights such as life,

liberty and property. Contractarianism stresses that a system must be fair and accord all its participants due respect. 

The rights ethics is a protest towards absolutist ethics (absolutist ethics). It acknowledges the existence of moral

rights. Those rights include: liberty rights and welfare rights.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The rights ethics is a protest towards absolutist ethics. It acknowledges the existence of moral rights. It put the

rightness of an action above its goodness. This suggests that it is not just what you do but how you do it is also

important. Ensuring the rightness and soundness of each action will indirectly ensure the delivery of the right results

rightly.

However there are certain limitations to the principle of rights ethics;

The justification that individuals are entitled to rights can be used to disguise and manipulate unjust political

claims and interests.

Protection of rights can exaggerate certain entitlements in the society at the expense of others. Fairness and

equity issues may be raised when the rights of an individual or group take precedence over the others.

Issues of reverse discriminations have arisen from this reasoning.

The limits of rights come into question. To what extent should practices that may benefit society, but

threaten certain rights, be permitted?

CURRENT RELEVANCE OF RIGHTS ETHICS

Ethics as such is disappearing not just from the business arena, but also from the world as a whole. Men today are

focused only on his rights and are not at all concerned about their duties. Here, rights are created to satisfy the

unlimited and irrational wants of the law makers, not considering the rights of others. Thus rights get into the system

as the situation demands and it results in unequal distribution of rights in the society.

Such a loosely structured system provides an inappropriate ethical environment. And this is one of the reasons why

ethics is vanishing from the business arena.

In this era of globalization, where businesses operate without any territorial boundaries, it is essential to have a

uniformity in rights, so that business ethics will be standardized.

CONCLUSION

In the rights ethical theory the rights set forth by a society are protected and given the highest priority. Rights are

considered to be ethically correct and valid since a large or ruling population endorses them. This philosophy is not

universal as the rights in the world are not similar for all. This right is different for different people, and is possible that

what is right and ethical for one need not so for his fellow being. Such a situation widens the gap between individuals

and societies and there exist no uniform standards, the absence of which will not deliver successfully to business

ethics.

ETHICS IN ANCIENT TEXTS

Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality,

such as what the fundamental semantic, ontological, and epistemic nature of ethics or morality is (meta-ethics), how

moral values should be determined (normative ethics), how a moral outcome can be achieved in specific situations

(applied ethics), how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is (moral psychology), and what

moral values people actually abide by (descriptive ethics).

Morality and Ethics are always interesting historical topics. To our modern minds, what is basically ethical and moral

sometimes seems relatively clear, such as not cheating or stealing, working hard to earn a living, etc., but even today

in some societies, that is not always so obvious. Yet most ancient societies certainly had standards of conduct in one

form or another.

AUTHOR/S

Greek Philosophy

Socrates

Socrates was one of the first Greek philosophers to encourage both scholars and the common citizen to turn their

attention from the outside world to the condition of man. In this view, Knowledge having a bearing on human life was

placed highest, all other knowledge being secondary. Self-knowledge was considered necessary for success and

inherently an essential good. A self-aware person will act completely within their capabilities to their pinnacle, while

an ignorant person will flounder and encounter difficulty. To Socrates, a person must become aware of every fact

(and its context) relevant to his existence, if he wishes to attain self-knowledge. He posited that people will naturally

do what is good, if they know what is right. Evil or bad actions are the result of ignorance.

Aristotle

Aristotle posited an ethical system that may be termed "self-realisationism." In Aristotle's view, when a person acts in

accordance with his nature and realizes his full potential, he will do good and be content. At birth, a baby is not a

person, but a potential person. In order to become a "real" person, the child's inherent potential must be realized.

Unhappiness and frustration are caused by the unrealized potential of a person, leading to failed goals and a poor

life. Aristotle said, "Nature does nothing in vain." Therefore, it is imperative for persons to act in accordance with their

nature and develop their latent talents, in order to be content and complete. Happiness was held to be the ultimate

goal. All other things, such as civic life or wealth, are merely means to the end. Self-realization, the awareness of

one's nature and the development of one's talents, is the surest path to happiness.

Confucian ethics

Confucius stresses honesty above all. His concepts of li, yi,, and ren can be seen as deeper expressions of honesty

(cheng , commonly translated as "sincerity") and fidelity (xiao) to the ones to whom one owes one's existence

(parents) and survival (one's neighbours, colleagues, inferiors in rank). He codified traditional practice and actually

changed the meaning of the prior concepts that those words had meant. His model of the Confucian family and

Confucian ruler dominated Chinese life into the early 20th century. This had ossified by then into an Imperial

hierarchy of rigid property rights, hard to distinguish from any other dictatorship. Traditional ethics had been perverted

by legalism.

Daoist ethics

Laozi and other Daoist authors argued for an even greater passivity on the part of rulers than did the Confucians. For

Laozi, the ideal ruler is one who does virtually nothing that can be directly identified as ruling. Clearly, both Daoism

and Confucianism presume that human nature is basically good. The main branch of Confucianism, however, argues

that human nature must be nurtured through ritual (li), culture (wen ) and other things, while the Daoists argued that

the trappings of society were to be gotten rid of.

Ethics in different religious texts/scriptures

Buddhist ethics

Ethics in Buddhism are traditionally based on the enlightened perspective of the Buddha, or other enlightened beings

that followed him. Moral instructions are included in Buddhist scriptures or handed down through tradition. Most

scholars of Buddhist ethics thus rely on the examination of Buddhist scriptures, and the use of anthropological

evidence from traditional Buddhist societies, to justify claims about the nature of Buddhist ethics.

According to traditional Buddhism, the foundation of Buddhist ethics for laypeople is the Pancasila: no killing, stealing,

lying, sexual misconduct, or intoxicants. In becoming a Buddhist, or affirming one's commitment to Buddhism, a

layperson is encouraged to vow to abstain from these negative actions. Buddhist monks and nuns take hundreds

more such vows. The Buddha provided some basic guidelines for acceptable behavior that are part of the Noble

Eightfold Path. The initial percept is non-injury or non-violence to all living creatures from the lowest insect to

humans. This precept defines a non-violent attitude toward every living thing.

Christian ethics

Christian ethics in general has tended to stress the need for grace, mercy, and forgiveness because of human

weakness. Christian ethical principles are based on the teachings within the Holy Bible. While interpretations of some

passages vary, Christian thought is fairly unanimous on the key points of ethics. They begin with the notion of

inherent sinfulness, which requires essential atonement. Personal ethics are the means to avoid or correct sin.

Christian ethics are founded upon the notion of personal freedom to choose and act righteously. Specific ethical

behaviors originate in the Old Testament’s Ten Commandments, and are enriched by teachings in the Psalms and

morals contained in historical accounts.

The New Testament on which Christianity diverges from Judaism added an eleventh ethical commandment: to “love

your neighbor as you love yourself”, including loving your enemy. This notion of brotherly love comes from the belief

that God so loved the world that he gave His son to sacrifice Himself for humanity. Key Biblical parables also teach

the virtues of approaching life’s decisions through a sense of personal peace and suppression of worry, doubt and

fear. Other tenets include maintaining personal integrity and the lack of hypocrisy, honesty and loyalty, mercy and

forgiveness, rejection of materialism and the desire for wealth and power, and teaching others in your life through

personal joy, happiness and Godly devotion.

Hindu ethics

Hindu ethics are related to reincarnation, which is a way of expressing the need for reciprocity, as one may end up in

someone else's shoes in their next incarnation. Intention is seen as very important, and thus selfless action for the

benefit of others without thought for oneself is an important role in Hinduism, known as the doctrine of karma yoga..

The greeting namaskar is founded on the principle that one salutes the spark of the divine in the other. Kindness and

hospitality are key Hindu values.

More emphasis is placed on empathy than in other traditions, and women are sometimes upheld not only as great

moral examples but also as great gurus. Beyond that, the Mother is a Divine Figure, the Devi, and the aspect of the

creative female energy plays a major role in the Hindu ethos. An emphasis on domestic life and the joys of the

household and village may make Hindu ethics a bit more conservative than others on matters of sex and family.

Islamic ethics

The foundational source in the gradual codification of Islamic ethics was the Muslim understanding and

interpretations of the mankind have been granted the faculty to discern God's will and to abide by it. Therefore,

regardless of their environment, humans are believed to have a moral responsibility to submit to God's will and to

follow Islam. This natural inclination is, according to the Qur'an, subverted by mankind's focus on material success:

such focus first presents itself as a need for basic survival or security, but then tends to manifest into a desire to

become distinguished among one's peers.

These changes lay in the reorientation of society as regards to identity and life of the Muslim belief, world view, and

the hierarchy of values. From the viewpoint of subsequent generations, this caused a great transformation in the

society and moral order of life in the Arabian Peninsula. For Muhammad, although pre-Islamic Arabia exemplified

"heedlessness," it was not entirely without merit. Muhammad approved and exhorted certain aspects of the Arab pre-

Islamic tradition, such as the care for one’s near kin, for widows, orphans, and others in need and for the

establishment of justice.

Jain ethics

Jainism encourages spiritual development through reliance on and cultivating one's own personal wisdom and self-

control . The goal is realization of the soul's true nature. The Triple gems of Jainism, right vision or view (Samyak

Darsana), right knowledge (Samyak Jnana) and right conduct (Samyak Caritra), together constitute the path of

liberation (moksha) from the the universal cycles of births and deaths. Those who have attained moksha are called

siddha (liberated souls) and those who are attached to the world through their karma are called samsarin (mundane

souls). Every mundane soul has to follow the path as described by the Jinas (Tirthankaras) to attain moksha.

The universe consists of living (Jīva) and non-living beings (Ajīva). The samsarin (worldly) soul takes various forms of

life. Human being, animal and plant, deity, and hell-being are the four forms of the samsari souls. All worldly relations

of one's jiva with other jiva and ajiva are based on its karma. There are five ethical principles prescribed by Mahavira

to his followers; ahimsa (non-violence), satya (truth), asteya (non-stealing), brahmacarya (celibacy) and aparigraha

(non-possession). The first is considered to be the most important because Jains believe in 'continuity of

consciousness' and that one has no right to interfere with the progress (spiritual) of any being, even the one-sensed.

Injury involved positive interference and so there was to be exhortation to practise non-interference.

Examples

Hindu Scriptures

1) Mahabharata: Before the battle, Arjun, seeing himself facing his great grandfather Bhishma and his teacher Drona

on the other side, has doubts about the battle and he fails to lift his Gāndeeva bow. Krishna wakes him up to his call

of duty in the famous Bhagavad Gita section of the epic.

2) Ramayana : Ravan is considered to be a unethical person due to the fact that he had kidnapped and held Sita

without her wish which lead to the his downfall at the hand of Lord Rama.

3) Mahabharata: According to the culture/norms when a messenger from one king goes to the other kingdom, he is

not supposed to be harmed but then Lord Krishna went to Hastinapur as a peace messenger to convince them to

avoid war, he was ordered to be captured by Duriyadan which was unethical which became one of the major reasons

leading to full fledged war which could have been avoided by ethical handling of situation.

Christian Scriptures

Old Testament

In the Old Testament, God anointed and appointed priests, teachers of law, prophets to address the people about

how they should live their lives

1) Exodus: Here God Almighty handed his servant Moses the Ten Commandments written by him on the Mount of

Sinai, which he wanted his people to engrave in their hearts. Also God performed many miraculous signs such as the

crossing of the red sea, pillar of fire and pillar of cloud, manna for food and springs gushing out of rocks during their

sojourn to Canaan to display his love and faithfulness to his people. The only thing God wanted from the Israelites

was to be obedient and trust him

2) Genesis: There are instances of God testing Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice his only son, who was born

to him in his old age. Also there are instances of Joseph’s unwavering trust on God whom he loved.

New Testament

In the four books of gospel, Lord Jesus talks about the kingdom of heaven, how do we enter it, what kind of behavior

God expects from us through parables. Whether it the story of the lost sheep, the sowing of the grain, the prodigal

son, in every teaching there lies a deep meaning which gets summed up in Matthew 22:37-39(which tells us to Love

your Lord with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind and Love your neighbor as yourselves). This he calls as

summation of all the commandments to lead a upright and righteous life according to the will of God.

Islamic Scriptures

The Islamic Scriptures such as the Koran finds much similarity to the examples mentioned in the Old Testament.

Prophet Mohammed cites several real-life instances to guide people’s way of living, respecting the will of the Almighty

(Allah) above all else.

Critical Analysis

After analyzing understanding the philosophies and teachings of various authors and religions, it narrows down to

basic fact that all scriptures advocate the foundation of religion in reason that is, all human beings beliefs, values,

culture, behaviors are shaped by their respective religious teachings of love for fellow-beings, pursuing justice,

practicing honesty, finding God within yourself and considering God’s Will above all else.

So there are 2 basic questions that need to be addressed:

1. Are religion and reason related to one another in making ethical decision?

The above question can be sub-divided into two subquestions

i) Content. Can reason alone provide us with adequate guidelines about how we should act? The

answer appears to be “yes.”

ii) Motivation. Can reason alone provide us with adequate motivation to do the right thing? Here the

answer appears to be “no.”

2. Do you think that God intended us to be masters over the environment and all that in entails?

The above situations are some of the instances, which attempt to show the ethical issues and illeffect of being

unethical.

In situation one Lord Krishna reminded Arjuna of his duties, and told him his duties are above all and he should

not be influenced by personal feelings but should think of the whole society and in other instances we can see

how the unethical practices of an individual resulted in the downfall of the big empires.

Today’s Relevance

Ancient Texts and scriptures are definitely relevant in today’s context, as it shapes an individual’s values, beliefs

and finally behavior. There are certain communities who still follow the Aristotle, Confucious, Socrates school of

thought, though with passage of time it is fading away. An excellent example of ethical code of conduct that has

faded away is the ancient Egyptian faith on Ma’at who was a goddess representing the divine harmony and

balance of the universe, which was thought to affect every aspect of the ancient land of Egypt.

But in today’s scenario religions have a definitive impact on the beliefs, values and social norms of cultures and

societies. Religious books still form the basis for determining the ethical code of conduct. Take for example, the

consequences of environmental degradation which mankind is facing or is about to face in terms of natural

calamities, ecological shifts, drastic climatic changes all find its roots in the scriptures of Holy Bible, Jain

Scriptures, Koran, Bhagwad Gita. This has shaped the formation of environmental activists, different NGO’s

taking initiatives to preserve the ecosystem and formation of international like the IPCC, WWF and the UNEP.

Conclusion

Based on critical analysis, it becomes quite evident that

Religion can be an indispensable part of ethics because religion helps transcend and address the difficulties

and inequities of life, which is fully supported by the philosophies of Socrates, Aristotle and Confucius and

many examples of which some have been cited below substantiate this fact:

Oscar Romero of El Salvador fought for the rights of the poor and was assassinated by government

troops

Mother Teresa of Calcutta left the life of a teacher to work with the “poor of the poor” in the streets of

Calcutta, India

All religions whether Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism or Jainism, support the belief that all creation has to

be preserved and taken care of, so it’s the responsibility of business corporation to responsibly use the

limited natural resources and create a sustainable environment for all future generations.

On the Whole we can see that the contribution of the ancient scriptures to the ethics is remarkable due to the

face that its these scriptures that defines cultures.