 |
|
The right thing is that which is most
favorable |
| Remember the Ford Pinto Case of the early 1970s? In that instance, a few Ford executives decided that a few passenger deaths would cost less than recalling the unsafe Pinto. They were eventually called to account by Ralph Nader and an outraged American public, and their profits suffered accordingly, but this example illustrates the main problem with this kind of ethical thinking. Not only is it short-sighted, but it violates the reality that companies are created by people, exist to employ real people, who serve real people, and are situated in real communities of people. While companies must certainly generate a profit to exist, to do so at the expense of the very employees, customers, shareholders and communities that they serve would a create a utilitarian, antagonistic relationship very much at odds with the true purpose of business. |
 |
|
The right thing is what the law says is the right thing: |
|
The passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 our legal system became among the most stringent in the world in dealing with corporate impropriety, but with this stringency come a couple of problems. First, the modern notion of law typically prohibits actions or behaviors rather than educating a person or an organization about what makes for noble action. The law is of little use in those "gray" situations. Second, relying only upon the law (and thus on lawmakers) severely limits man's responsibility to consider for himself what's right and what's wrong. This legal reductionism grossly underestimates not only our capabilities as individuals, but also our responsibility as human beings, employees and members of society. Certainly law is necessary to facilitate organization and collaboration, but as they are made today, they do little to promote right-thinking, the source of proper ethical conduct. |
|
|
|
Abstract "universal" principles show us the right thing: |
|
Every now and again we come across idealist ethical statements based on the Categorical Imperative set forth by 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant, which essentially says: "You should do what you would want anyone else to do in your shoes." On the surface, Kant's imperative looks warm and fuzzy, just like the Golden Rule most of us learned in our youth. However, closer inspection reveals that the driving force behind this thinking is what you want as opposed to what is right. Were we all to adopt this imperative, we would find ourselves inclined to congratulate rather than condemn corporate executives manipulating stock prices for personal gain . . . . wouldn't any of us want a few million dollars more in our pockets, too? Kantian ethical thinking moves individual will to the driver's seat the decision-making process, and relegates true reality to the back. Doing the right thing (the Golden Rule) is distinctly harder than doing what we want (Kant's Categorical Imperative). |