Ethics and governance

Ethics and governance

Ans. 1

Even the most cursory foray into business ethics will bring one face to face with Kantianism. Indeed Kant's influence on that branch of ethical theory known as deontology is so strong that some writers simply refer to deontology as Kantianism. Despite the fact that Kant's name is often invoked in business ethics, as of 1997 there was no published book that systematically applied Kantian theory to business. Kant is best known for defending a version of the "respect for persons" principle which implies that any business practice that puts money on a par with people is immoral, but there is much more to a Kantian approach to business ethics than this. In this essay, I focus on five key aspects of Kant's moral philosophy. I begin by showing some of the implications of Kant's three formulations of the fundamental principle of ethics. I then show why Kant's emphasis on the purity of our intentions in acting morally has created problems for a Kantian theory of business ethics. I conclude with a brief discussion of Kant's cosmopolitan and optimistic outlook, and show the relevance of those ideas to contemporary business practice. (Arnold, Denis G. and Norman E. Bowie, 2003)

The self-defeating nature of immoral actions

Kant's first formulation of the categorical imperative is "Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Although the phrasing is awkward, Kant is providing a test to see if any proposed action, including actions in business, is moral. Since Kant believed that every action has a maxim, we are to ask what would happen if the principle (maxim) of your action were a universal law (one that everyone acted on). Would a world where everyone acted on that principle be possible? One example Kant used to illustrate his theory was a business one. (Arnold, Denis G. and Norman E. Bowie, 2003)

Suppose you desperately needed money. Should you ask someone to lend you money with a promise to pay the money back but with no intention of paying it back? Do your extreme financial circumstances justify a lying promise? To find out, Kant would require us to universalize the maxim of this action: "It is morally permissible for anyone in desperate financial circumstances to make a lying promise, that is, to promise to repay borrowed money with no intention of doing so." Would such a universalized maxim be logically coherent? Kant answers with a resounding no.

And could I say to myself that everyone may make a false promise then he is in a difficulty from which he cannot escape? Immediately I see that I could will the lie but not a universal law to lie. For with such a law there would be no promises at all, inasmuch as it would be futile to make a pretense of my intention in regard to future actions to those who would not believe this pretense or- if they over hastily ...