Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility ADMS 3660
“Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility” ADMS 3660 Petrenko Anton, Ph. D Hours: By appointment (Tuesday 19: 00 -19: 45) E-Mail: petrenko@yorku. ca
Lecture Objectives Lecture Summary: This class will introduce students to the Kantian (deontological) moral theory of Respect for Persons. The students will learn about the historical roots of theory, its arguments and objections, as well as its application to cases. The conditions of moral agency and the nature and limits of our moral obligations will be discussed. Deontological Theory: Immanuel Kant Positive and Negative Obligations Conditions of Moral Agency Paternalism and its Limits Cases: Enigma Code Cases: Deceptive Psychological Testing Cases: Buying and Selling Blood Cases: Surgeon’s Duty
How would a utilitarian address this issue? What is seems wrong, if anything, with doing the transplant? What is the source of our moral intuitions? Can they be explained away? What is a unique and irreplaceable surgeon , who can still save many lives, is dying of heart failure. She can be saved with a transplant, but there are not available donors. However, there is a homeless person, with no skills or social use, whose heart can be harvested without his consent.
Full-body Scanners at Airports Viviane Reding, the Justice Minister for the 27 -member European Union: "Our citizens are not objects. They are human beings. " Ms. Reding emphasized data protection and a right to information privacy guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights. US Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah): “…There comes a point in which in the name of safety and security we overstep that line and have an invasion of privacy. This happens to be one of those invasions of privacy. ” Former secretary of homeland security (2005 2009) Michael Chertoff: “The administration must stand firm against privacy ideologues, for whom every security measure is unacceptable. Failing to use all available tools to plug a gap in security puts the lives of airline travelers needlessly at risk. ”
Deontological Ethics (derived from the Greek word for “duty”) stresses the ethical centrality of such things as duties, commitments, principles, and obligations. It denies that all ethical judgments can be made in terms of consequences. There are some things that we must do (or not do) as a matter of principle (categorically) and regardless of consequences.
Immanuel Kant and Deontological Ethics Immanuel Kant (1724 -1804), a German philosopher and rationalist, argued for a deontological theory of ethics. Denying that ethical principles could be determined on the basis of empirical observation, Kant derived his ethical theory from rational principles. Immanuel Kant (1724 -1804) Philosophically, rationalists (e. g. Leibnitz, Descartes, Kant) differed from empiricists (e. g. Bacon, Locke, Hobbes, Hume, Mill) on methods of obtaining secure knowledge and discovering the truth. While empiricists emphasized senses and empirical observation, rationalists emphasized rational reflection and logic.
Kant’s View of Moral Law: Argument Well, as everyone else at the time, Kant was impressed with scientific progress (Isaac Newton) Gush. . that’s ambitious… So how does reason discover moral values? He noticed that natural laws are generalizations that apply universally and unconditionally for a set of specific situations…. For example, Law of Gravitation: Fg = Gm 1 m 2 / r² So, he reasoned, if there are moral laws, then they should apply universally and unconditionally as well…. Hence, to check if something is a moral law, one should see if it can be universalized (applied in all situations of specific kind) without generating a contradiction.
Kant’s View of Moral Law Fg = Gm 1 m 2 / r² “Do not lie” Can we universalize lying? No. That leads to a contradiction. Hence, like physical laws (e. g. law of gravitation), moral laws (e. g. “do not lie”) are universal, general, and unconditional. If everyone lied, lying would stop to make sense—no one would believe anyone. This would contradict one’s very point in lying. So, its irrational. For a consequentialist (utilitarianism), the imperative “do not lie” is morally right only in situations when it leads to maximization of happiness. What would happen if lying was universalized? If everyone lied all the time (at the same time)… Would lying make sense? For Kant, the imperative is morally right unconditionally (like law of gravitation). Reason reveals both kinds of laws —both laws are proven by the principle of non-contradiction.
First Categorical Imperative (Universalization Standard) Since all laws are universal and consistent, any true moral principle must be universalizable without a contradiction. This provides the first moral standard for Kantian Moral Theory: So, what does this mean as far as moral standards are concerned? Moral Standard 1: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. " ! …. In other words… act in a way that you can accept that others act with the same maxim (intent) as a rule…
Second Categorical Imperative (Means/Ends Standard) Second moral standard can be derived from the first. Is it possible for an individual to will that free will of other people be denied to them, without generating a contradiction? It seems, if this free will is turned into a universal law, it itself will be denied (contradicted because it will fall under its own prohibition since it is a free will itself). Can I freely will that free will be denied, without a contradiction? Moral Standard 2: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means“ … In other words, treat others with respect for their interests, freedom, and dignity…. !
Similar Idea In a sense, the categorical imperatives suggest that if you act in a particular way, you should recognize that because there are no essential differences between you and others you can expect them to act the same way. So, do not act in a way that would undermine your essential interests or the interests of others. Hmm… this sounds familiar… Silver Rule (negative): Golden Rule (positive): "Do to no one what yourself dislike. “ (Tobit 4: 15) “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Matthew 7: 12) Platinum Rule (reasonableness): “The golden rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever reasonable, as they want to be done by” (Karl Popper)
Rational Human Nature and Dignity For Kant, the fact that we are rational means that we can choose how to act—we are self-legislating. We choose our ends (goals)—we are autonomous! Objects, on the other hand, do not have rationality and free will—they don’t choose their ends (goals). Therefore, they can be used as instruments (means) for the goals we choose for them (e. g. stone for hammering in a nail). This is the foundation of respect. Individual’s autonomy and dignity is violated when they are bent to someone else’s will without consent. It turns them into objects subject to exploitation and abuse—their right to exercise their own will is denied to them.
Respect for Persons Theory Deontological Ethics and Rights Duties imply rights. Duties--what we owe to other people--establish the ethical limits of our behavior, and as a consequence others have a claim upon our behavior. In other words, they have rights. Rights can be understood as protecting Interests. Unlike wants and desires, interests are objectively connected with what is good for the person (regardless of what they think). Rights trump Happiness: For a deontologist wants and interests are not equal. Some interests are so important that they should not be sacrificed in order to increase the overall happiness. Rights must protect these interests; they are (categorical) trumps that override the collective will.
Problems with Kantian Theory Kantian theory is morally intuitive in a number of scenarios where utilitarian theory is not. For example, in the case of justice/fairness or in the case of intrinsic badness of certain actions (i. e. dirty hands). But it also has problems: 1. 2. 3. Imagine that a concentration camp prisoner escaped from the Nazis and hid in your house. The officer comes and asks if you know where prisoner is hiding. Should you lie? Kant believed that moral duties cannot conflict with each other, but that’s false. Rules require balancing. For Kant, the ground of respect is rationality, so moral consideration does not extend to those less than fully rational, like mentally retarded, infants, or animals. But this seems counterintuitive, since they also have interests (even though they can’t very well look after them). Finally, universalization test, by itself, is not a very reliable guide to moral action. A Nazi or a racist, can universalize a rule “exterminate all non-Aryan races” without a contradiction (his aims would not be undermined if every one followed it). But he would not universalize “exterminate any race you like, ” since this one might affect him. Much depends on how one formulates the maxim.
Rights as Conditions of Autonomy For Kantian deontologists, autonomy requires freedom and wellbeing. This implies that a human being has rights that fall into two categories: Negative Rights: Positive Rights: These rights create duty on others to provide something (assistance): e. g. assist with housing, food, education etc… T S I S AS Example: positive rights to assistance in freedom and well-being would entitle the person to basic welfare support, free medical attention if they can’t afford it, etc… These rights create duty on individuals not to interfere with others. ’T E N DO FER ER T IN e. g. don’t deny right to life by murder, right to property by theft, right to freedom by deception Example: negative right would protect personal freedom and well-being from violence, theft, deception and manipulation…
Rights as Conditions of Autonomy • If you are applying theory, determine if your action violates individual’s freedom and well being (conditions of autonomy) by asking these questions: Positive Rights Test: Does your action assist others in achieving their level of freedom and wellbeing? Positive rights are recognized when: a) Negative Rights Test: Does your action override freedom or well-being of others (ability to initiate and control their own behaviour, set and pursue their own goals)? special relationship of obligation (a) Does it harm others? to assist exists between the (b) Does it manipulate or forces others people involved physicians (denies freedom)? /patients, parents /children, etc… (c) Does it deny other means/rights b) when a person can assist necessary to support or protect another in significant way with little their interests? sacrifice to him or herself.
Principle of Forfeiture Hold on. But what if the person who done a crime (e. g. robbery) and we decide to imprison them? • The principle of forfeiture in the ethics of respect for persons states that if a person violates the rights of others (positive or negative), they forfeit some of their rights in proportion to the severity of their violation. Hence, it is permissible to, proportionally, restrict their freedom and well being. • People can also voluntarily forfeit some of their rights in other situations. For example, when boxers enter the ring they agree to the possibility of being hit by the other person. In the same way, when business people enter business competition in the market they agree to the possibility of losing. Would this not violate their freedom and well being and, as a result, be impermissible on this theory?
Respect for Persons: Checklist 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. State the moral rule to be evaluated (and its alternative) Apply the self-defeating test of the universalization principle Apply the negative test of the means-ends principle If relevant, apply the positive test of means-ends principle Make the final decision on the morality of the action. a. b. c. d. If rule passes tests, it is morally permissible If rule passes tests but its alternative fails tests, it is obligatory If it fails either of the tests, it is morally impermissible If both rules fail the tests, choose the one with less severe violation
Case Analysis: Plasma International: Buying and Selling Blood Plasma International, based in Tampa, Florida, is in business of selling blood and plasma: it found an ideal donors in West African nation of Burami. It negotiated with several tribal chieftains and was able to buy blood for beads and trinkets. The cost of buying was 15 cents a pint; the sale price was 25$. When information became known, it caused a public outrage, but Sol Levin, one of the founders of the company, failed to see what is wrong. He provided uncontaminated blood to patients at market price, gave tribespeople what they wanted in exchange, collected blood safely. Is there anything wrong with this case, from the perspective of the morality of respect for persons?
Example of Analysis: Plasma Int: Buying and Selling Blood Does the practice override freedom or well-being of the donors? Methods were safe and health was not threatened. Consent of tribesmen was sought, but can we assume that the donors were not coerced to donate within the tribe? I am not sure. VE I AT T G NE TES Also, tribesmen consented, but their consent was not fully informed—information pertinent (material) to making a rational (free) decision was withheld. (You would want to know the resale information). The tribesmen did not know, and could not possibly know, the ultimate value of the blood on the market. Fail.
Example of Analysis: Plasma Int: Buying and Selling Blood Does the practice assist in achieving the freedom and well being of the donors? The practice does give something tribespeople want in exchange for blood; assuming they really want it, the practice minimally promotes their well being and freedom. But is there a special relationship between buyers and sellers, in such cases, that make assistance a moral requirement? It does not appear so. Irrelevant. VE I IT T S PO TES
Example of Respect for Persons Analysis by C. E. Harris Jr. “Applying Moral Theory” pp. 184 -185
Case Analysis: Enigma Code During WWII, using a secrete decoding device, British intelligence found out that Germans knew the identity of two British counterspies. At the time, these two female counterspies were in Britain. The British government had to make a choice: either to send the counterspies back to Germany, where they will surely be tortured and killed, or keep them safe in England, thereby letting Germans know that they could break their Enigma secrete codes. Knowing German messages would be a serious advantage in the war effort. Balancing Act: Situations can bring moral obligations into a conflict. In such cases, one must consider the consequences of actions (but comparing violations of rights rather than utilities) a) How important is the violated right? b) How severe is the violation? c) Is it direct or indirect violation? d) What is the likelihood of harm?
Example of Respect for Persons Analysis by C. E. Harris Jr. “Applying Moral Theory” pp. 184 -185
Case Analysis: Deceptive Psychological Testing Dillard Johnson is a psychologist employed by the personnel department of a large corporation. One day, his superior asks: “Dillard, we are afraid that our employees will form a union within a year. Could you devise a psychological test, so that we can measure employee union sympathies? Make sure to disguise it as some test for new opportunities or something. ” Dillard wants to impress his boss, but he is not sure about the ethical propriety of the assignment. Is there anything wrong with this case from the respect for persons perspective? ?
Case Analysis: Surgeon’s Duty 13 year old Jason Simmons has been diagnosed as having a ruptured appendix. His physician says he needs immediate surgery; however, Jason has been attending Christian Science services and has come to believe in healing power through prayer. He does not want surgery even though his parents do. Should the surgeon defend the boy’s right not to have surgery or should she go along with his parents request? Key Question: Is Jason making a really rational and informed choice or is he too intellectually immature to make an autonomous choice? Is he under undue emotional pressure from his religious community? Is this true choice or is he simply rebelling against his parents?
Paternalism and its Limits Previous case involves paternalism—using coercion to get another person to do or refrain from doing something for his or her own good. Weak Paternalism: Strong Paternalism: Strong Paternalism is when some individual determines what is good on your behalf. Strong paternalism is not compatible with the Respect for Persons moral theory because it allows to override a person’s free will. ? Weak paternalism uses coercion but only to the extent necessary to preserve a person’s freedom. Several circumstances (ignorance, intellectual immaturity, emotional disturbance, social pressures) could decrease a person’s ability to make free and informed (autonomous) decisions. Weak paternalism is compatible with theory’s positive obligations to assist in special circumstances (e. g. children, patients), but it applies only when a special relationship exists.
Mixing Consequentialist and Deontological Reasoning Michael S. Moore is one of the most prominent authorities on the intersection of law and philosophy. He teaches criminal law, torts, constitutional law, legal philosophy, as well as political philosophy, and ethics. …we need relief from the saintly pressures of consequentialist reasons. We need permission on many occasions not to do acts maximizing good consequences. Second, we need agent-relative obligations that both prohibit actions even when these actions would produce the best consequences , and require actions when those actions would not produce the best outcomes. …. we are generally are governed by consequentialist reasons, save when we are permitted or obligated by agent-relative reasons …I am only a threshold deontologist. This means that over some threshold of truly awful consequences, I will potentially do virtually anything to avoid it. If I can locate and defuse nuclear device at 42 nd street only by torturing an innocent child of the terrorist who planted it there, I torture. ?
- Slides: 28
