e{Kco\ fwo,rq- ohc)' $u rhua

surqrr\\'{.lutro,n
CrAi EFat,E d [q Gu 3 fSouuJrc^*p
/\\v
"r.r-l
ll
U\U [$ICrf\ (. ]5OtrtLC_
ErHrcnr
THrony G,r.r"n ?^r.*.cu ?,r.,!J,
ANDBusrrurss
Pnncrrcr
|Rtr =qnl
Lt]I JI
tg:

.1liLIRGI BLst\!ss organizadonsbejust? Should dre chiefobligation ofbusiness

be ro look ouL for the bottom line: How far'strould businessgo to protect and
presene the environmentiIs it wrong to sharecopr'rightedntusrcover the Ioter-
net?Theseare someof the niari\ questionsthat perrDeate discussionsof thc role of
ethicsin business.
Tlte essavs and casesin this book provide an opponunin ro discusstheseques-
tions bv reading and rellecting on ir-rlluentialargunrentsthat havc been macle on
thesesubjects.The goal of rhis firsr cliapter is ro proride a foundetiol in ethical the-
ory sui-ficienrtbr readiog and criticallv evaluatingthe mater-i:rlinthe ensuing chap-
ters. The first part of this chapter introducesbasicand recurring dtsrrnrrions.
definitions. atrd issues.The second part examinesinfluential irnd reler'ant$pes of
normativeethicaltheonl The ihird part cliscusses the casemethod":rsrn exercise
in noral rellection.

FUNDAMENTAL
CONCEPTS
ANDPROBTEMS

Moralitv and Ethical Theory

A distinctio[ befiveen moralitv and ethical theoin'appeaN in several essals in this

volume. rlfo,"iz1rhis concerned with s," irl prrcri.e' d"tining right and rvrong.These
pracrices-togerher rvith other kinds of custon]s, ruies, and mores-are transmitted
h'ithin cult[res alrd institurions from generation Lo genenlion. Similar to political
constitutions and natural languages, moraliw exisrs prior to the acceptance (or re-
jection) of its standards bv parricular individuals. In rhis respect moralita cannot be
purelv a per59n3l policy or code and is certainh not confined ro the ruies in proles-
sional codes of conduct adopted b_vcorporations and professional assocratrons.
In contrast to moralit'-,the terms rtriaal trcorNa:rld moralphtktopl,- point r., r,:-
flection on the nature andjusdfication of righr actions. These words refer to at-
tempts to introduce clarit\'. substanae. and precision ol argument into the don-rain

H
 Irhi.rl Theon,and Rusiness
Pracri.c

of rnolalin. AlthoLrshniarrr people go through lifc rlirh an understantlingof rnor-al_

io clictaredb\ their crrllure. other pers()n,iare nor sad!fied to co lbrm to ute morat_
itl of societ\. Thev lant clillicult cluestiotsansterecl: Is 1\llat our socierr lorltitls
nrongi Are social|alues the besr|alLlesi\\:h:rt is the purpose ol mor:rlit,,iDocs reli-
gion havc anrthing to do nith moralin? Dit the moral mlcs (rf socien fit rogethcr.in
a unilied whole: ll thcre arc corrlli, r,.rn.l iltonrirrcnrics in ,,lLr
l)t-r,riccs arcl b.,
lieIi, ]row should thev bt- resolrecli \{hat shorLlclpcople do rrhen t'acinga rnoral
problcm for which socien has, as vet, providcd lo insu-uctioni
\loral philosopher-sseek ro ansrversuch qucsrionsand Lo pur mor.al beliefs
ancl socialpracticesoI mor-a]in irrto a unified ancldefensiblcshape.Somerirnesrhis
task invoiveschallerrgingtl:rditional ruora] helieirsbl arsessillgrhe qualin.of moral
argumcn$ and sugsesting t-Irodificarionsin existing ltelie1s.\br.aLitr.. rve rright sar,,
colrsislJ of rrhat persons ought to do in order to conforD to socieNrs norrns of be_
havior. r,hereasethical theon con( erns rhe philn,.,,phir.rlI -.rs,,nsfnt ancl against
aspects of the mofaiit\: sripulared bl srlciery L,suallv the laner elTort ccnlers on
justl:ifttiatr Philosophers seek ro justifi :1srstenr of srand:rrdsor sone morar pornr
ol \-ierr c)n the basis of carclullv analvzecland defeDcled concepts :lnd pr.inciples
such as respectlbr autonontl, distributivejusdce. eqDai treetlrenL.huntarr rights.
bcnelicence,a d uuth{ulness.
\Iost moral principles are alreadvembeclderiin public moralir\.,bur usualh.in
a lague and underanalvzed 1brm. Jtstice is a goocl example. Recurrenr topics in the
pages of the \lttll ,\heetlournaL. Fortune, Busine.tslllalr, ancj orher leaciing business
Journalsofren discusstirejusrice of rhe present svst€moi.ofporaLe and individual
taxation as ft'ell as the salaries paid ro chief executivc oflicers. Hortever.,al1 ertend_
ed ol detailed anah.sisof pr-inciplesof.justice is rirtualh.ner.r:r pro\idcci in rhe
rnedia. Such mauers ar.e leli at an intuitive levei. \,hcre the correctDcss of a nofal
poinL ol lieu, is assumed,r!ithout argumetrt.ltion. \it the fuilure to pror,ic.leanvthirrg
more than a superlicialj ustiticarioD.in tenns ol inruitive principles lcarnecl fronr
parenrsor peers,leavespeople unable to defeDd their pr.inc\tlestvhcn challc[gecl.
In a socien \\,ith rrranvdiverserierrs of nror-alirr.one can be laidr sure fhat one,s
1 , ,t - , i 1 , l - .r ' . l l h e , J r .l l e n c . 'l .

Morality and Prudence

Ilanv studentsdo not encounrer-morai philosophv as a topic r_rfsrudr until college

or graduate school. Nloralin,, horreveq is learnecl bv virtuallv cterv voung child as
part of the :tccultnrarionprocess.Tlie firsr srep in tbis processis learning ro distin_
guish noral ruies liom rules ot prudence (sclf_intcrest) . This raskcan be difficult,
becarisethe nlo kinds of rules are uugh. simuluneouslv, wirhout being distin-
guished b-vthe childreo's teachers.For example, peopie are constantlvrentindecl
in their early vears to obscrle rules such as. ..Do[.t touch the hot stove.,,.,Don,t
cross the stree! $ithout loo\ing both rvars,,..BrushLour teelh after meals...ancl
"Eat rour vegetables.'Nlost of these ..oughts,'and ,,ought nors'.are instnrctrons
in
sell:interest-that is, mles of prudence. blrt moral mles :rre raughl et the same
 lhc.rn aild Busmess
ErhL(::rl Pr&ticc

tinc. PerenLs.terchcrs. an.l pccrs rcach lhet celLajll rhings ,r,qrl ,.rlto be .lone be-
'\\'fong' (lnorlll\
cxlrsethc\' :rre ) ilnci lhat ccrtaiD tlriugs o,/gfilt() be done l]ecause
"Don 'LJon takt: mi)llev fiolll
Lhc\,dre "fieht- trnorallr'l: t pull rour sisLer'shnir. t
'Sherc rorrr r(xs.' \\jilt a th:tnk-\'oltnot.- to (;rand-
\olu m()ther's llocketbook-
[lir. T]rese nrofal instflrcLionsseek lo corltl-ol irctiorlslhirl allcct the Inler'c\ls ot
oLhcr pe(rpie..\s peoplt' rrllrlufe. thev lcern \,hat sociell c)<pecrs of lherrl irl Icr nll
of raking irrro accounLthe iIteresLsof othcr pcop]e.
One of the [lost corn[Iorl obserrltiorts in busiuessis that se]i:inlereslalr(i
goocl ethics gcncrall-rcoincidc, bccaust'it is Lrsll:rll\in onc-s irrteresLt,r act m,rtailr.
This lact rn:1keseralulLing anodrer's conchlct difticult aicl mav r.ncl t() c()rtftlse
rnoral reasonirrgrvitl-rpluclential rearo ing. r\ simplc exarr4tleof lnolal Jnd Pru-
clential reesoning run Logetherin businessis foirnd in the decisior'ro[ the \Irrliott
Corporatiorr to rnake a concerted effort ro hire persorts*lto had bcen on rteli'are.
Thcsc indivir:lualshad olten been consirlered high-nsk as cnplolees. but cheuges
in the U.S. lrelfale svstem in the ]ate 1990s forced man\ \lelfare recipicnts io scck
r\'ork- \Iarri()tt Nas one ofrhe fe\, major companies to tal<cthe initiatile to hirc
them in largc numbcrs. Such lrehavior might be considered an eriampie of moral
goodwill ancl cthical altmism. -\lLhough corpo.ete officials at \Iarriott cjearlr bc
lieved that their decision was ethicalh !ouud and promoted the public good. Lhel
also believecl drat their initiatile to hire lirrmer welfare rccipients \rr1sgood bLlsi-
rtess.J. \\:. \{arriott Jr said, "\\:e'r'egertilrg llood emplo\ees for rhe long term, but
rre're also hclpine thesc conmunities. If rlc don t step up in tirescinner ciriesand
prolicle l ork, tLev'li nerer pull out ol'ir. Bur it makesbottom line sense.lf ir dirln t.
wc rroulcln t do it."r
The nirture ofmoral language lr,ith the laneuaqe ofprudence is often harm
less. Nlanv pcoplc are lrlore concerrlecl aborrr rhe dalirrt businessestake than *,irl-r
Lheir notii,ati)ns to perlorm rhosc actions. Thc-se people rlill be inclilfclent as to
'rr.hetherbusinessesuse the language ofprudetrce or the ]anglrige ol moralit! tojus-
rilv Khat the\ do, as long as thev do thc right thing. This distinction between mo-
ri\e! and actions is ren impoftant to philosophers. ho$eleq becausea brLsiness
practice rhat rnight be pr'udentielhjustified mar' lack moral merit and mar e'en be
morallv wrong. HistoN has shoqn how some actions rhat were long accepted or at
least condoned in thc businesscollurlLr it\'\{eae er,entualhcondernneclas mor'alli
dubious. Eramples inclucle pollurion ol the air and rvaLer.pl:rnt rclocation purelv
for economic eain. and iarge political contriburions and bbb\'ing direcred at peo-
pL,-of politicel inllrrcnce.
Businesspeopleof'ten rcflect on rhe mo.alit\, of their actions nor becauscit is
prudent to do so blrt becauseit is right to do so. For example, E1oTouchsvsleurs,
Inc.. a subsidiarvof Ravchen Corporarion thar rnalulhctures comprlter and other
monitors. decided ro relocale Lhe cornpanv frorn Oak Ridge, Tenuessee, to
Frcemont. California. ,\s a marter of fidelitl ro its 300 enplovees, Lhecompanv at-
'rempled to find ne$,.jobsfor thelr rD the Oak Rirlge area bv placing adlcrtincment:.
sponsoringjob fairs, and the iike. It also olfe.ed generous bonusesf.tr fhose $'ho
'n'oulclrelocate to Clalifo|nia. In light of rhe pool ol taler1Lknown to the companv to

-
ErhicatTheon an.1Bu\ine\sPractice

be availablcin Calilbr-nie.rrone of this aclivit\,in Tennessec-seerned i the comPa-

n\"s prud€ntialinter-cst.Ir simplvseemedthe mo.alh aPProPriate polic\.
It is wideh,belieredthat acringrnoralh'is in the interestol business, and lhu\
pruderrce seeils Lo be one sllong Irroli!e-pcrhrps the lIrain motire-for :rcting
ethicalh. Hore\.er'.throughoLrtthis Le-rL rrc lr,ill repeatedlvsce that Prudence Lrlien
dictaresa clifferenrbusiness decisionLhln doesmoralin.

Moralitv and Larv

Business edric!in dre L:nitedstaresis cLrrrenthinv(tled in an entangled.complex,

and nutuallv stimulating relarionship rvirh lar', as is illusdated in the legal cases
reprinted near the end of rhe follorring chaptels.Nloralirv and larvshare concerns
ovcr nalters of basic social importance and often have in common ceftain prinLi-
ples, obligations.and criteria ol evidence.Lair.is the public's agencvfor transiating
moralitv into explicit social guiclelinesand practices and ibr stipulating punish-
mcn$ for offcnscs.Chaprelselections mcnlion boLh.ase1a$,(iudge-madelat'ex-
irressedin courl decisiolrs)aDd statlrtorrla\r (fecleraland statestatutesand their
accornpanvingadministnltiveregul:itions).In thesefirrms law hasforced vital issues
bclirrethe publicand is frcqucntlvrhe sourceof ernergingissues in businessethics.
Caselar'. in particular, has esrablishedinfluentjal precedentsrhat pro!'ide materiai
fbr retlection on both legal and moral qucstions.
Sornehavesaid dlat.orporarc concernabout business ethicscan be reduced
or eiiminated bl turning problemsover ro the legal clepartmert. The operative idea
is. 'Let rhe la\wersdecide;if it's legal.it's moral."Although rhistacticrvouldsimpli-
li matter-s,moral evaluation needs ro be distinguishedfrom legai evaluation. De-
spite an intersection bet\leen morals aDrl1a$'.the lar, is not the solerepositon' of a
societl'smoral stanclards and values,evenwhen the law is directh'concernedhith
moral problems.A lar.abidilg personis not necessarihmorallvsensiti\cur \irtLr-
ous, and the iact thar somethirrgis legall-vacceptabledoes not imply that it is moral-
lv acceptable.for exarnple.the doct ne of emplovmenr :1twill permits emplovers
to fire emploveesfor urljust r-easons and is (wirhin certain lirrits) legal, vet such ftr-
ings are often norallr'unacceprable. X{anvquestionsare nised in chapters belorv
about rhe mor_aUn'ofbusinessactions.such as plant relocationand mergels that
causeunemPloiment,eren thoush suchactionsare not illegal.
A tlpical e)rample is the foilorring; h rvasperl-ectlvlegai rvhen Houston fi-
nancier CharlesE. Hurruitz doubled the rare of tree cutting in the nation's largest
privatell ou,nedvirgin r-eclivoodforcst. Hc did so to reduce the debt he incurred
lvhen his companr'.the Nlasam Group. borroved monev to complere a hostile
takeover of Pacific Lurnber Companr',which olvned the red$oods. Before the
takeover,PacificLumber had follorled a consenatire cuttiDe policv but nonetheless
haclconsistelLiroperatedar a plofit. Despitethe legalit! ofthe ne$ cleer-cutring
policv initiated bv the new o\rner, it hasbeen cliticized asimmoral.:
-\ related problem inr,olvesthe belief that a person lbund guilt! under lau is
therefore morallv guiltv. Suchjudgments are not necessarihcorrect, as they
 Lthical Theon and BusirrcssPra.tr.e

cl,:pend on ciilrer the intcntion ol thc agentsor the rnoral acceptabiJin'ofdle 1:r\\'
oi rr{rith rhe juclgment har been retchecl. For eranlPle. il a chemical t,,nlPrllr is
legalll liable firr pr-,llutingtht- enrironrrr-nt or a pharmaceuticellim is liable fol a
drug thaL has har_nrerlcertain paLieDLs, ir does not lolk)\r dtal anl fi)rrrl ol nloral
rlrongcloirrg.cLrlpabili6'.r)r guilt is associatedrvith the actilin.
-\sbe!tos lirigation is:t wellkrtorvn cxarnple.Becalrscol the sttcngth. dLuabili-
n , a n a L l i r e - f e s l s t a noc1e: r s b e s t o s . i L r l : r s u s e d i n t l i o u s a n d s o f c o l l l 1 m e r . a u t ' ' , t l i \ r : .
scil]nfillc. indLrstlial.and naritime procr-sses:rndprodtLcLs. \iirtualh no serioLrsso-
cial eLtentiou n'aspaicl to asbestositi the United Statesurtil 196'1.rlhen a srrong
link wrs esrablishcclbenr'eenasbcstosclustand disease.-\ manl as 27 million rr'ork-
ers in thc Linited States nrav have been exposed to this liber, ancl 100 rnillion Peo-
p1e nlir,! hale been expc.rsed to asbesLos in buildings. \Ianut'lclurers did not knot'
about these problens of rlisetseun til around l9{j4r rlodetllcless,beginning rtith th e
1982 bankruptc! of the Johns-\,1anr,ille Coiporatiorr, manv corporations hare beerr
successlulhsued. Thr: problern continucs to cscalatet(xla\ lor comparllessltctl as
(,eolgil-Pacific ancl Hallibunon. From 2{)00 tllr{)ugh spfing 2002 there lrcrc 2:
asbestos-related barrknrptcies (compared to 18 lor e]] of the 199(ls).-\lthotLgh a!-
bestosmanrrlactutersand thcir customersoriginallv hacl good intentions ancl good
prodLLcrs,Lhcl plricl:l steep price under the 1aK.1
Furthermore. the courts har,eoften been accusecl.rrith sone justilicariou, of
causing rnoral ineqrtities through court judgments rendered aliainstcorporuLi,rns.
Hele are some examples:1(1i \Ionsauto Chemical rlas slrccessftllvsued for $200
rnillion. although the presidilg.judee assertedthaLthere $,asno credible evidence
linking Nlonsanto's-\gent Orangc to the se!ere harms that had been described irr
thc casc. (2) Cher,ron Oil rvassuccessfullvsued for mislabelingiLscansof p:rruquet.
altholrgh rhe otTelding label conlbrnreci exacth to federrl reeulations.Nhich per
uitted no other lorur of labei to bc used. (3) Although r,hooping coueh \tccrne rn-
disputablv r-educesthe risk of this tliseaselbr children 1tho receive Lhe raccine,
alnost no rrlnulacnrrer_ llill producc it for' feal of costll suits br'ooght under prod-
rrct liabilio lats.
In each instance it is casv to LiDderstad rvhl critics have cr-rnsidered various
regularions. legisiaLion. and caselaw decisions to be rnorallr' unjustified. Taken tcr
gerher. thesc considerationsleaclto the fblkrl.ing conclrrsion:If something is legal.
it is not rrecessarilymoral; iI sonerhing is illegal, it is Dot necessarilvinmoral. To
discharge onc's legal lespoiisibilities is not necessarih to discharge one s nloral
rcsponsibiliries.

The Rule of Conscience

The slogan "Let lour conscience be voul guide' has iong been, for manr, whaL
rnorelitv is all about. \'et, despite dreir admiration for persons of conscrence.
philosophers ha\e npicallvjLrdged appeals to conscienceas alone iDsufficient:Lnd
untaustrrorlhv for ethical.judgment. Clonsciences|an Iadicallil iiolll Per_sonto per-
son and tjme to Li re; moreover, rher, are ofien alter_edbv cilcumsLln(e. reliqious

-
 Ethical Theor\ irn.i Busiresspra.rice

bclief childhood, ald u aining. Onc exarnpleis {brrnclin SurnlevKresgc,

the son ot
dle foltncler ofS. S. Kresge Cionrpaur-1()1. l1()!!.n as the .,K \Iart.. fiorpor
arion_
who is a reetoL:ilertbr religious rc:1sons. \\hert rhe compallv startedselling becr and
rr'ile. Kresge solclall his stock. llis consclence.he saicl.r,orriclrroLlet
hinr make a
pr-o1it orr alcohc.rl.The cornpar.ir,:thoush. clisrnisscdhis objecrion as ,,his
orvn busi_
ness:Indsai.lth:1titseesltorhiDg\\,tolts$itllearninl]profjtso11aicohoi.r_\second
cxample is fbund in manv indiriclualstl.ro beliele rlrai businesshas been
conrluct_
ed in rra\s rhat danage dre enrironment. These feelingsare parricuiar]v
strong iD
tht--Pacific Northrvesr trhere rhe lumber inclustn has allege.liv rhreatenecl
enclan_
gered speciessuch as thc spotrecloll. The consciencesoimembcrs
ot |arth First
have been so aroused that thev hale engagedin actsof.ccoterrorismsuch
:rsputting
lar-gc sFikes in trees that can injure loggeis rrho arc cutting Lhem. The
merrber^s of
Errth First believe that rhev are acting as required bv consclence.
Bur rhedter their
acts are norall! acceptableis seriouslr.indoubt.
The reliabilin of conscience,Lhel. is n,,r srli:cerrjhjng. \lorrl
Justilication
must be based on a source external to conscience.

Approaches to the Study of Moratity

\Lrmlirr and erhicaltheoryc:rnbe stuclietjand cleveloped br,:rva en.of merhods.

but drree geneml approacheshave clominaredrhe literarure.Tno
of thcse ap_
prr>achesdescribc and aDahzemoralin.,presumabll,$ithout taking moral
position.s.
The other approachtakesa moral positi,cnand appealsto moralii,or ethical
theo_
r\' to uDdel]\'rirejudgmenrs.Thesethree approaJes are: (1) Descriptir.e, (?) Con_
cep,nral, and (3) Prescriptive(normarive).Thesecategoriesdo nor express
rrgid
and ahr,avsclearlv distiuguishableapproaches.Noneth-eless. when understood as
nt:ol..po_h.:and contrastinepositions.the\ can sene asmoclelsof inquin
anclas
r r l r r e h l rd i * r i r tr, i o l s .
Soci.rlscientistsoften refer tc, tlTedes(iptii,eappraath,\sthe srientiJirsttttll
of
eJhjus.,FJ, nlal dcstfpdo :rnd e\pianationof moral beharioranclbeliefs,as per_
I'runed b\ eDthropolotists. :,rciUlogisrs, and hisrorians,ar.e qpical of this ap_
ploech. \Ioral anitudes.codes.and belieii rhat are desc bed irr.lud.
.,rrporar.
policieson sexualharassment and codesof erhicsi1l trade associations. Erirlples
of tlris approach can be found in Hamanl Bu.sint:.s,?zraa articlesand ibrDasmaga-
zine polls that report wh21tbusinesse\ecurivesbelie\:eis moralh.
acceptableancl un
acceptabie.
Tlre second approach inrrrlr,esthe conLeftlutl,td_l of ethics.Here.
the mcan_
ings of cent.ai lerms in ethics lucir as ngrt rfiligation, jttstice,
gttu(j.ntrtur, and
r?sfotstbilittare analvzed. Cmcial terms in businessethics
such as hab ity av)
d..rl)tion car' be given this same kind of careful cooceptual auenrion.
The 1ir,.rp"r
anallsis of dre term moralitj (as defined at the beginning of this
chaptcr) aDd the
distinction beh!.eenthe moral ilnd the nonmoral ar.enpical exarnples
ol these con
ceptual problems.
The third approach, pres(:nptilu(norm,atiae) slri..r, is a prescriptive studv at_
temptingto formulateand defendbasicmoral norrrs.Nc,rnarivemoral
phJlosophr
 f L l - r '. l l h F ^ n d r d B u ' r " F * P r r ' r i . r

:1imsat deterrnining rvhar orgll to be clone, rr'hich necds to lle distingLrished fiorr
l'hat is, iri [act. precticed. Idcallr: an ethical theon provides reasonsfbr acloptirrga
whole svsten of moral principles or \irtues. (.'tilitdridnitm.and Kanlizrnlsntirre rvidelv
discussedtheor-ies.bct thev are not Lhe onh such ti-reories. Urilitarians argue that
there is but a single lundamental principle determining right action. rthich crn be
'An action is rnoralh right if ancl onlv if ir produces at
rooghlv statcd as lbll-'ns:
least as great a balance r-rfvalue over disr,alue as anv atailable allernative ,cfion.'
Xantians,br contrast.ha'e arBued fbr principles that specili obligati<tnsrarher than
a balance oi va1ue.For erample, one of I(ant s best-knol'n principles of obligation
'\ever
is treat another person mcreh' as a mcarnsro your o\t'r1goitls." even if doing
so creates a net balance of positi\e r,alue. Borh forms of these theories, together
rrith other dinensions of ethical theot.l',are exanrined in dre second paIt of this
chapter.
Principles of normative ethics ar'e commonll used to treal specific moral
problerns such as famine. conflict of interesr, improper disclosrire of information,
en\'ironmental pollution, mistreltment of anirnals,and racial and sexual discrimi-
nation. This use of ethicai theorv is often referred Lo. sotnervhat misleadingly. as
alplietLethis. Philosophical treaunent of medical ethics. engineerjng ethics,joru-
rralistic ethics, j rrrisprudcnce, add business ethics inrolves disdnct areas that emPlov
eeneral erhical principles to attempt to resolve moral problems Lhat conmonlv
alise in the professions.
Substantiallv the same general ethical principles appiv to the problems across
professionalfields and in arcas bevond professionalethjcs as irc1l. One might aP-
peal ro principles ofjustice, for-cxanrple. to illuniinate and resolveissuesof taxa-
rioo. health care distribution, environlnen|al responsibilitr,criminal punishment,
and racial discrimination. Similarlq pdnciples ofvencin (truthlulness) applv to de-
bates about secrecverld deception in intcrnational polidcs, misleading advertise-
n1entsin businessethics,balanced reporting injournalistic ethics,and disclosureof
illnessto a patir-ntin medical ethics. Increasedclari$ about rhe general conditions
uncler n'hich tmlh must be told ancl r"'lien it mav be withheld l'oulcl presumablv cn-
hance understanding of moral requirements in eech of these areas.
The exerciseof soundjudgrnent in Lrusiness practice together rvith appeals to
ethical theor! are central in the essilvsand cascs in this volumc. Rarel,vis there a
straishtfonvard "application" of principles thar frecha ically resolvesproblems.
Prirrciples are ilore colnmonh speciJied, that is. made ntore concrete for the con-
re\t, than applicd. N{uch of thc best ork in contemporary businessethics invohes
argumenrsfor ho!v to specifl principles to handle particular problems.

Relativism and Objectivity of Belief

Sonre ivrirers hale contended that nioral liews simph express the rvals in lvhich a
culture accommodatcs the desir'esof its pcople. Cultural relatirists note th:lt [ioral
standards lall fronl place to place. In the earlr'part of the tlventieth centur'\'. de-
fenders of relativism used lhe discoveries of anthropologsts in the South Sea
Islan':ls, ,\hica, and South Anerica as evidence of a diversiry of moral practices

H
FLhir:elTheorr, and Ru5inessPra.ri.c

rhroughour rhe rorlcl. Their enpirical discolcries about l,hat is the cme lecl them
ro dre aonclLrsionthilt righncss is corrtineenLLrncr.rlturalbeliels and that the con
cepu of righr essarld \!rongness are nleaninglessapart fiom the specrill(:contexts
irr uhidr thcr, alise. The clainr i-sthat patterDsof culture can onh be understood as
uniqut- rvholcsancl rhat mor_albelieli about nornai behil\'ior r1r^ecloseh conDrcted
ln a culture.

Ethical llelatiaism, These .J.r.)?tii.r claim: abour rrhar is rhe case in cuiturcs
hare oficn lrt-'en tlsed to jusrili a nornative positicttt knotrl as etliical relativism.
Lthit.t.l nld.i1';.\tt^s\ert-sthaf \{h;llever.l cultur-e thinks is right or 1rrong rcalh is right
or \\rong fi)r the rnernbersof rhat cultur_e.This thesisis norntati\e. becaLlseit makes
a rallre judgmenl; it delineates itltih standutdsar Lorns carred[\ detertnineriglLt ontl
uang h?hdniar. TL s. if the Srrcdishtradirion allols abortion, rhen abortion realh is
iroralh permissiblein Sneclen.Ifthe Irish tradirion forbiclsrbo ion. therl ]bot tiun
re:1llvis 1llong in Ireland. If erhicel relali\isnr is correcr. then ther.eis no c renon
independent of one s cultlue fbr dererniinilg rvhether a pracrice re:rllr is right or
1\'ronQ,
l.rhical relarivism prolides e theorericili basisfor those lho challenge.tirar
ther corrsiclerro be the irnposition of \\estern values on the rest of the \\,olld.
Specificallr', sone spokespersons in \ia have criticized lhat thev r-egard as the at-
terrrprs ol rr'cstcrtrcrs to impose their values (es the normatir,el! correcl v:1lues) on
\ian societies.Despite rhe inlluenct , rl r elatirism lntl m rrlrculrur:rlism,the.e hare
bccn manl recenLattempLsb\ both gorernment agencies:lndmultinational corpo-
rations to promulgate intcrnaLionalcodes oI brtsirress coDduct that sunroLlrlt rela-
ti\.isn (sce Chapter 9). \Ioreover, mor:rl pl]ilosophers hlve Lended r() reject
relarivisrn and ir is important to unclersLancll!'lt\:
First, moral philosopl-rersask. nhat does the arguneDt fiotrr the f:rct of cultti,
al dilersin reveal?\{hen earh anrhropologisfsprobcd benearh surtace 'moral' dis-
agreemen$. the\ ofteD discor.eredagreementat deeper levclson mofe basic\'a1ues.
For example, one rnthropoloeist discov('red a tribe in lr,hich piueDts, alier raisiDg
their children and \\,hen sdll in a relariveh heallhr state.$,ould climb a high tl ee.
Their chilc.lrenlould then shale rhe tree unfil rhe parents fell to rhe ground and
died. This cuhrrral practicc seems vasrh different from \\iestern practices_ The an-
thfopologist discovered, ho\relet rhat the rribe belieled that people \{eIr inro rhe
.ifterlil'e in the same bodilv srate in hich the\ leli dris life. Their children. rvho
wanred them to enter the aI'terlifcin I hcrlrhr sttt-, reLc nn Lcsscun, erled about
their parents than are children in \Vesrern cultures. _\lthough cuhuraL di:agrpe-
nent exisrsconcerning rhe afterlile (a disagreemcnrabout lrhat is or is Dot the
case), thcrc is no ultimate noral clisagreement o\:er-the moral principles determin-
ing how chiidren shoold |Ieat their parents.
Despite their obr,ious differences of practice and beliei'. people olien actuallv
asrec about ultimate moral standards.For cxample, both Germanv and thr L-nircd
StaLesha|e la$s to protcct consruners from the adverse aflicrs of nc\{ dr:ugs and to
bring drugs to thc nlarket as quicklv as possible so that lir,esare saved.\'et Germanv
ancl the Unitcd Srates have dillerenr standards for n:rking the tradeoff bet$,.eeD
proaecling fron side effec$ ani:l sa\inq lives as soon as possible. This suggests that
 EthicalTheon and Bt6inessPractice

n\'o culhrr-cs mav aEireeabout basic principles of moralinr ver disagree about how to
in-tplementrhose pr-inciplesin particular situations.
In manr"'moral controversies"people mav difler onh becausether have clif-
ferent facnul beiief!. For-instan.e. individuals ofien diller over appr-opri.rrcetrions
to protect lhe envir-onmcnt.not bec:rusethev have dille]'ent setsofstandards abont
environmental ethics bui because ther hold dill'erent factual \ic\rs ahout hor! ce[-
uin dischargesof chemicals and airbor_neparticleswill or will not harm the envi-
ronmeDl. Iclentical sels of normati\e standards might be invokecl in their
arguments about environrnental protection, ver different policies and actions might
be recomnended.
It is therefore essendal to distingrish relatfutsmaf Judcme x ftoil relati.)ivrt,of
sldnddrds.Different judgments mav relv upon the same genenl standards for their
justification. Relatir"ism ofjudgment is so penasive in human social life that ir 1!.ould
be lbolish to denv it. People rnav differ in the ir j ucigrle nts regarcling u,l-rerherone
policv for keeping hospital inforuration conficlential is more acceprable than an-
orher. but it does not folio$ that thev have different moral standards ofconfidential-
in: The people mav hold tlie sanre moral standard(s) on protecting confidentialitv
but differ over horv to implement the standald(s).
Horvcver. these obsenatiorN do not decide r,'hether a relatirism of srandards
pro\ides the most adequate account of moralitr,. lf moral conflict did tlun out to be
a marter ofa lundamental conflict of moral rtaridards.such conflict could not be re
moved even if there rvere perltct agreenent about the facs, conceps, and back-
ground belieli of a case. Suppose, then, thar disagreement does in fact exist at the
deepest level ofmoral thinking-that is, suppose rhat nro cultures disagree on basic
or fundarnental norms. It does not foliow even from this relutil,it\ af stunaLarL]s tbat.
there is no ultinate norm or set of norms in rvhich everyone o1lgrlro be]iele. To see
rr'hr', consider the folloring :rnalog" to leligious clisagreement: From rhe fact rhirt
people hare incompatible religious or atheisticbeliefs.it does not lbllow that there
is no single correct set of religious or atheistic propositions. Nothing more than
skepticism seens jusrified b,v the facts about r-eligion that are adduced b-\'anthlo-
pologr: Similarh. nothing more Than such skepticism abour rhe moral standards
wotrld be justified if fundamenrai conflicts of moral standartlsvere discover-ed in
ethics.

An Argumbnt against Ethical Rclatizriyn. The ericlent inconsisrencv of ethical

relatilism nith uranv of our most cherished moral belieli is a reason ro be doubtful
ol it. \o general theor-y ofethical relatilism is likeh to conlince ris rhat a beiief is ac-
ceptable mereiv because others belier,'ein it stronglv enough, although that is ex-
actlv the commitment of this theoni Ar least some moral r.ier!'sseen relativeh' more
enlightencd. no maner hon'sreat rhe r.ariabilitl ofbeliefs. The idea rhat pracd.es
such as slaverv-'cannot be evaluated across cultures by some common standard
seems ntorallv unacceptable. not moralh enlightened. It is one thinli to suggest that
such beliefs might be r:c.2l.ted.sriil anothe. to suggest that the! are Dgrl.
\{hen t\\'o parties argue about some serious, divisile, alrd contested moral
issue-fbr example. conflicts of interest in business-people tend ro rhink that
somc fai| and justified compromise mav be reached. People seldom iifer from the

--
10 F t h i r i L l T h e o n a n d B L L S i n e sPSf a c I i . e

judgc one \ ie\\ Js t' 'r-

mcre irct ot a cont-lictbenlceu belieis that therc is 1lo1\'a!to
absurci thc
rect or as bctleL argue{l ()r m()re reasonablethan 'he other''fhc more
\Ln]lc \ ie\s
posiLionacl.'ancedli. oIre parn. the rnorc conrinced others bccomc lhitt
are rnisraken.rnreasonablc or reqtLiresupPlem'ntaLion

Moral Disagreenents

indisputable
Even il erhical relati\isn rs unircccptable rne still musL conll-ont the
etlst
fact of mor_aldisagr'eenlenr- In anv pluralisiic cLrlture manr conflicts of value
t'ithholci-
In this lolume serjcral controletsies and clilenmas are examined, such as
jndustn' advertising
ing peltinent inforrnation in businesscleals,nhistleblot{ing in
policies'
i,ri.,r,t",t to manipulatc people's feelings. Practicing Preferelti:rl. hiring
\tats to
ancl thc like. -\lthottgh some disagreements seem overrr'hclni o_' lere lr-e
have
resolve Lhen or at le.1stlo reduce the level ofdisagrecnent Se\eral merhods
of
been empbved in tile pasr ro cleal const ctivelv 1\'ilh moral disagreemenls' etch
r,hich descrvesrec<)gnitionas a methocl of easingdisagreenent and collflict'

Obtaining ObiectiaeInformation. NlanY no'al clisagrcements can he at ieast

moral
pa ialh rrsolied bv obtainiDg aclditional factr'ralinfbrmrliolr on whi'h
contror'ersicsturn.tat]ierirrr,'asshorlnhorvusefulsuchilfolmationcanbeintf.!.
ing to ascertain nhether cultural variations in belief are fundamcntal Unfilrtu-
nateh. it has often been assttmetflhat noral dispr'rtesare bv delinition produced
l:lck
solelv bv differences ovet motal principles or thelr applicationind not bv a
as
of sci,-'ntificor fictual information This assumption is misleading, inasmuch
be
moral clisputes-thal is, disputes or'er rvhat moralh oughl or olighr not Lo
cle-
done-oftcn have norlmoral elernenls as lheir nain ingreciients For examPle'
work-
baresover rhe allocation of tax {lollars to Prelent accidcnts or diseasein the
place often become boggetl dolln in lactual issucs of \!'hcther Particular me:rsures
such as the use of prorecti,'e masksor lor.''erlevelsof toric chem icalsactuallv func-
rioD best to prevent death and disease
Yet another example is provided bv the disPute bet\"een Greenpeace and
Roval L)urch She1l.Al'tei considerable inrestigilLion,Ro\al Dutch Shell proposecl
to sink a loading and sroragebuov for oilin the North Sea (offEnglandI Despite
some evidence that such an operatioD posed no environmental danger' Green-
peace cond.ucted Protests and even Lrseda group of small boats to thu'-:rrt thc tt-
rempt. Roual Dutcir Shell vieided to its critics, and lhe buol was cut uP and made
intc, a quav in Norrvar'. Later, hot'elet. even Clreenpeace calne to the conclusioll
th.t ,-r"it in.t. indicated thal there had ncver been anv serious environmental
dangcr.
Controversial issnes such as the following are l:rcecilr'ith issuesof both lalues
and fects: Hou satislactorilv toliic subslancesare monitoted in the rvorkplace; horv a
'appropriated" an established companv's trade secrets: the ef-
start-LlpconrPan! has
fects ol accessto pornogrephv through the Intemetl Nhether an exter1sion of cut_
the
rent copvright lur", ,uo.tli reduce sharing of copvrighted recordings on
lnterneil .nd lhe maoufacture, disseminarion, and atlvertisement of vaccioes for
 Praciicc ll
l-thicalTheon and B Siness

m e d i c a l r t s e ' T h e a r g u n r e n r s u s e c l b r c l i s a g l e e i r r g P a l t i e s mrnoral:
] v t u r n but
( n ] l Lher
d r s Pmav
uLe
pl iniuilr'
harnt. or'j''rsticeancl thcrefor'c nal be
ser-
"ia,,,,tU".,., fot erarnple' the eJfectsof a,product
also rest on factual clisagreements or'er-'
bearing on the resolutron
;;.;,;; Inforrnarion r,'rv thus ha\c onlt'linited
".;," a rlircct anrl a;DosLo\erpo*ering i.flnence
oi..,rrr. aor,-r.rries, r.eLit rna' har.e
ln otne$.
halc been rettied bv reachmg
Dsnitional C'dti4' somelimes conlrovetsies
langtlitlle used.bt dispttting parties'
couaepural or clelinilloDal aqreeneDl ovcr-the
of allirmarire r'rion itnd
(lontrorersies discrtsseclin ChaPter 6 over the n;ralitv
neecllesslr cornplicared ber euse dilfer_
sctlr'.11harasstlleDl. lbr examPle ar'e often
artd ler clisputingplu ties mal hale
enL sense:of these expressionsare emplovecl
is no courmon point of con-
m,r.ft in**.a in theii particulal definitions' If Lhere
entirci\ separateissuestltrough
tention in such cases,Parties $ill be acldrcssing
ha\:e a bona lide lnoral
,i*i,:i...qr",d .r..,tttptio"t' otien these parties rvill not
clisagreenlcnl
gua|autee that a dispure vill be
.\lthough conceptual 'rgrecrnent Provicles no
issues For rhts rcason'
jertled. ir $iii facilitat; difec; discussioirof the outsnnding
orr Problemsol conceplLralcladn
,u"".1.-.r,r. irrirti, .olurne dwell at some length
conlr'rversics can also be aided
Etanple-Countetexample Resolurion of moral
is bv bringing lbrrvercl
rr" pJttg'"t.tnpl., and opposcd counterex:rmPles' that
point of\'ie1\'andcourlterexirmplesthat
casesor e{anrplcs that are la\oraDIe to one
againsr Af&T involving a dtspute
ur" ir't ,rpp,r.iii,rr't. For instance, a ftrmous iase
bent'eerrthe companr''rncl the Eqtlal
over discriminatot_l'hiring and Promotion
handlecl rhrough the cita
i"rpf.r'-",ti Opp".tunities Co-mi'sion (EEOC) uas
documented the clalms lrade Dv
rion otl staLisricsand examples th:l| (allegedlv)
on,ir. palroll $'erc
.".r,,ia". -\T&.f shorved ihat 55 per,:.nt ot rlLe rmpl'rccs
lrrr- lrcld bl t'omen' To
,,("t,,"t th:rt Sii percenr of all marr:rgcmentpt'sirion:
""a in rhe cvidence rllt-
.tt.rp"tt irt al)egatiJn of discriminatorr'"practices ,facc-o:fthis
dcrDonstreting-that 99 percenr of
LEOC, courrrereclbr cltlng a gon"t"t"(]ttt stuclv
onh l percent of craft n'orkel s \!'ure
^lf i.f"prl,rtt. .rp.ao,.',, *"tt i"rlrale' r"'hereas of
fem:rle.Such use of example lo.rrrt"a.t^nple serles ro rrei3h Lhe slrength
"rrd
confl icting considerations'
serviceable mefiod of philosoPh
Analysisof Argumentsand Positicns' Finallr" a
in ind unexpectecl'onsequences
i.,rr inl.riit i, ihniof.xpo,ittg rhe irraclequacies
thar leads to-:,t-11::t:* that a pro-
ol argri'me,rs ancl positions A moral algument
anticipate will have to be
nonent is not prepared to detencl and ;lid not Preliouslv
bereducedbr
rhoservhoiisagreewill perhaps
il;;:i, ;;;; il;'-Ji,i;'.'..;;";""""
schemesor
this process.lnc()nsrstencres nol oniv in re:rsoningbut in orgarizational
il a context o{ controvers\" sharP at-
DronouncemerlLs can be uncovered Holvever'
t:limatr: of rea-
i"';.;;,il;;;;-t't"r;rttrt- ut e'entxate in an agteernent unless a
Dc open
r,- pr"t"if". i fi axiom ofsuccessiulneeotiation is re-ason.llld
"aamental as rvell as aDl othel disagreement
io rlJ^..rn." ttt. .t*i,rIn hoids tor moral discussion
can alu'avsbe resolved
No contention is made here that Inol.:ll disagreenents
tht same lnethod for approaching
or that evel1 reasonable person nlust accept
Ethicll Theor\ enci BtsinessPraclice

of thc four
such Problems. Nlanv moral disagreemerlts lrlar not be I csohabic bv anr
meth()ds drat have been ciiscussed -\ single €thical theon or nethod nlat nevet be
developcrlto resohe ail disagrecmentsadcquilleh. and the pluralisln oI crrlnrral be-
liclis olien presenls a consiclerabie barrier to the rcsolution of issues Givcn the pos-
sibilitr' of forrtinLtal disagrcenent. thc r-esolutionof crossculturalconllicts such as
il
those faccd bv muhinadonal corporetions mav Pruve especiallr'elusiveHorveler'
something is to be clone lbotlt lhese problems, i resolutioD seelnsnlore likeh'to
occur if the methods orrtlined in this section are llscd

The Problem of Egoism

-\ttituclesinbusinesshaveoftenbeendeerrredlundamentallvegoistic'Execlttir'es
ancl corporari()ns aae said to act purelv liom Prudence-that is, each business is out
to pao,rrot" soleh'its orrn interest. Some peopic sat that the corPolation has no
other intcrest, because its goal is to be as sllccessfulin co Petition as Po\sjblc'
The philosophical theon called /go;.tmhas lamiliar origins Each person has
been colfi:onted,ior exanPle, rlith occasionson rrhich a choice nust bc made be-
n'cen spending monet'on oneselfor on some \!orth! charitableenterprise \\rhen
.[ie e1..ts to purchasene\! clothes for onese]frather than contdbute to I rlnirrrsin
scholarship fLr-rd for poor students, self-interest is being given P oritv over thc in-
terestsof orhers. Egoism generalizesbevond these occasionsto all hum:rn choices'
Tlrc egoist contend-sthat ;11choices either involve or-should invoh'e self-Promotion
as their sole objective.Thus, a petson's or a.orpomtion's goal and perhaps onlv
obligatior-r is self-promotion No sac fice or obligation is o\\:ed to olhers

Pslchological.Egoism.There are 6{rl main varieties of egoism: Psvcho}ogical

egoism and eihical egoism. Psvchologicai egoism is thc \ier' that el'en'one is al$'els
nioLivate,lto act in his or her perceivedseliinterest This f''Lcttaltheon'rcgarding
hunran notir':rrion ollets at explanutior of human conduct in conrrast to a
ofhfinan conduct. It claims rhat people al\'!avsdo wha! pleases Thenl or
justil:it:.1tion
rutrai is in their interest. Popular lvavs of expressing this viervpoint inchrrle the fol
lorting: "People are at hea; seHish. even if rhel appear ro be unselfish"; "People
look out firr \-umber One fi$t"; "In the long run, even'bod! does what he or she
'-\-o
r!'ants lo do"; and matter whal a person savs.he or she acts fbr the sake of per-
sonal satisfaction."
Psvchological egoism Presents a serious challenge to moral philosophr' If this
theorw is correit, there is no Purelv altruistic moral motivation' Yet nonnari\e ethics
(1\,ithrhe exception of ethical egoism) apPearsto presupPosethat people ought to
behar,e in accordance with certain moral principles. whether or not slrch behavior
pronotes their o!!n interests lf people matf da,in their own inLerest, to esk the m to
iacrifice for others would be absurd. Accordingl-\",if psichological cgoi\Rr is trLrr,
the u'hole enterpdse of normative ethics is futile
Those who accept psvchological egoism are convinced bv lheir obscrvation of
themselvesand otheis fiat peoPle are entirelv selfcentered in their moriretion
Conlerseh', those $ho reject the theorv do so not onh because thev see manl'
 Ilthicrl Thr'or,, irll.] BLrsinL'ss
Pracrire 13

er.anrplesof altrllistic beha|ior in rhe liles of fricncls,seints.heloes. and pLrblicser-

!:rnts. but also becausecontcmporal .rlrthrolloloS, psvr:hologl.allcl biologl ollir
-{o[lc compe]lir1gstudies of sacrilicial beha|ior Eren if it is conceded thar people
er'cbasicallvselfish cr-iticsofcgoism maintain that there are etleestsorne outstantl
irrg exe[rplt--sof prt-'cnrincullvunseilish actiolls sLlchas whcn cofporations .ut paof-
iLsin order to proricle public services(see Uhapter 2) and rr,henenplovces "blol-
the rrhisLle' on unsafe or oLhenise improper blLsinesipr'acticcscvcn though the\
corrld lose Lheir jobs ancl sufler social ostracism (sec (,hapter -;).
1-hc delenrler of psrchologicalegoisn is rr-rrimprcssedbv the excmplalr lives
ol sainLsand heroes or br social pracficcsof corporare sacdfice.The psrcliologrcal
egoist mainLaiusthat:r1l lose persons who expend cllbrt to hclp others, to pr_o
lr()te Iairnessin cornpetiti()n. to plonole the general rrr:ilar-e.or to r-isktheir lives
lbr the nel{are of others are, underneath it all, acting to promote themselles. Bv
s:rcrificing tbr their children. parents seck the satisfrlctionthar comes fiom their
drildren s der.eLrpnrerrt or achie\,ements. Bv follorrin3- socit-'njs moral and legal
codes,people avoid both the police and socialostracism.
Egoists nlaintain thrt no matter horv self-sacrificinga person s bchavior mal
et Limesseelrr,Lhe desire behind the actioD is seiflegarding. Onc is ultimateh our
lirr oncsell. rvhether-in the long or the short run, antl w-heLherone r'ealizesit or
not. Egoistsricu self-pro[roting actions as pcrfccrh. conrparible$'ith behavior rhat
'en-
othefs cateliorize as altruistic. For exanple, man\ corporatiolls hare adoptecl
lightelecl self-interesr"policies thlough rvhich thel are responsire to comrlrLulir\
needs and pronote rvorker sarisfactioI ro promote thcir corporarc inage and ulri-
mateh theit earnings. The clever pcrs.rn ur LUrpurJiion .ln .rpp(,lr Lo be Lrn-
selfish, brrr the action s tnle character depends on the )nalii-talitlbehind the
appcarence. Apparentlv altruistic asents mav simpll believe that an unsclfish ap-
pearllrce best promores theia long-range interests.Fr'ornthe egoist'spoint of rie\\,,
tha lact that sonle (Pseudo?1sacrificesmav tre [ecessan in the short nrn does not
c()Lrrrtagar st egorsm.
Cionsidera npicrl example. In mid-1985 Iliinois Bel1 argued befbre the Illi
nois Commerce Conmission thar its conpctitors should be all() ,ed lull acccssto
markets and that there should be no reguhrion to protcct Illinois Bell fiorn its cum-
pctitols. Illinois Bell had long been protected bv sucli reguiation. under thich it
had gror.n to be a successful $2.7 bi ion compa[t. \Vhr', fhen, r,as ir non arguing
that a completeh fi-ee market would be rhe fnirest busiress arnngement? Ilrr.t
rttagazineasked."Is this lltruism' or is it enlightened self-intelest'i"Iorlar editors
ansrrered that. despite the appearance of altruism, whar Illinois Bell rvanted rr.as"ro
-qeLthe state regularors off their b:Lcks' so tbat dre companv rvo[ld be able to com-
petc nlore successfull-vrdth te\\'er constftlints and to avoid losing business to large
companies thaLcould ser up their o1\'ntelephone s\,stems. Self-interest.not lairness,
rv:rs.accordins to lolrd. the proper e\planation of lllioois Bell s behavior 6
Evcn if Illinols Bell s behavior is best cxplained as n)otivaleclbv self,inrerest.it
rteeclnot follo$ that all human beha\ior cau be besr erplaiDed as motivated bl self:
intcrest. The question remains: Is psvchologicalegoism correct:,\t one lerel this
qaestion can bc ansrered onlv bv empirical data-bv looking at the facrs.Signill-
canfh', thele is a lalge bodv of evidence both fiom observaLiorrsof dailv plactice and
l,l Irhical Tbeol\' and Rusinesr]'ractrce

coLrntsagilinst the rrnive'salifi'

from experiments in psvchologicallaboratoriesth:rt
oi"g,ri.ii. -u.i.^tior,- Th" ..id."t" fion clailv pracrice is not limited t(r herorc ac-
and lea\,in3 tips t11restaur.antS
tion but inclucles such mundarre Practices ls vo|ilIg
r r r ' lJ r J h r ' n ' r h i r , u r r ' g ' r i n
J d h o r e l .\ 1 h . r c J f e l . o n r l l ' c sn o l - \ l e r I I ' I I e
dili'tthc di:prrte olien is
\\hen confronted t'ithsuch atttflitu"g enrPllicill
lt i\ ttrnpung tor th: ptlt]l."tT]:
..i..a f..'rt ihe empirical lelel to thr ronttpiurl
of the difliculties in pro\1rtg tt
cal egoist to make rhe theo- arri:srarih true because
ro-ii *opirottl tme. \\'hen tonf"'nttd \\ith 1\'hat look like altruistic rcts (qirists
act is based
I[u" to ur-rconscior.rs motiles of self_inlerest or clatm that erel u_
on that desire is
"rrp"ul
;;:;;:;;;" ;i,he person performing the act and that acting
\\,hat is neant b1' .taly'?tleterl.
lerbal lrick: The e'qoist has
The latter explanation seems to be a coDcePtual or 'acling exclusilelr on
meant
changed rhe meaning of rlfinldlsl' At hrst srly'inlererl
has been redefined to
fr"i*if .f one's orn'n self-serving interesr"' Nov the tord
questions temain rtnresohed:
-""n ""a,ing or't or-tyinteresr oni has " \at the centl.al
sometimes have an interest
Are there <lifferent kinds of human motiles? Do People
of others' or do peoPlc act
ir'r u.tirtg fo. themselves and at other tines on behalf
let to establish that PeopLe
onlo' 1b.'rhemseltes? Philosophl' and pslcholog hale
egoism re-
,r""=r. ao",a"- ,o perceived ielf:inrerest; for this reason pslchological
"a,
nlains a speculative hpothesis

rhe onlv valid srandard

Ethic.tt Egoisnr-Ethical egoism is a theon srating that
above er'etrone elsc s'
of concLrct is the obligation !o promote one's t'ell-being
theon abl)irt htlnan
\i1r"..u, p.u.hological egoism is a descriptire psvchological
tvhat peopie ottght to ckr' Ac-
motivation, ethicaiegoisir is a normative theon about
the basisof perccived self-
cording to pstcholog-ical egoism, people alrtals rJoact on
interesi. Aicordinglo ethi.al ptopit alruars ottgil lo act on the basis of
"gni'-,
t-- --i,tti."tself:intert:r'
Derceired
Consider
.goi.- is drematiclliv differert fion cornmon moral beliefls
fil st lnd Lrtherssecond"'
maxirns,such is abu're a sucker if \oLr dun t Put \oulselt
ir is belicred that people
This rnaxin is generalll thought un:rLcePlf,bl"'becruse
the,vmust correct a bank loan
must return a l6st rvailet ro a koown o'vnir ancl that
whv people should iook
officer's erro$ in their favor' Nevertheless, questions about
troubled manv reflective per-
out for the interests of others on such occasiols have
interest is conlralv to reason
sons. Some have concluded that acting against one's
tinged with irrational senti-
These thinkers, lvho regard conuentiJ"ai moraliq.-.as
the suPPoriers of ethical
menr ancl indefensible iorrstrairrts on the indi'idual, are
the interests of oihers' but
egoisln. It is ot their liew that one should aiwals ignore
rvhen it strits one's olvn
.Jther thar o.te should cor-tsidertlie interests of others onlv
interests.
What$ouldsociewbelikeifethicalegoisrn*etctheconlentional'pre!ailing
theoists have arsued
theon of ProPer conduct? Some philosophels and political
thatanarc.hismandchaosrvouldresulrunlesspreventivemeasulesl{efeadopted.A
Thomas Hobbes'
classic statement of this position l\as made bv the philosopher
 L h r . r l I l r c r , . r r ' I B r ' i , , " P r ' , , I' , l5

Imagine a norid uith limited resources. he said, rvl-relePersons are aPPro\imeteh'

eqlral in their abilitv to harm ooe another end i!herc elerr'one acts e\ciusivciv ill his
or her interest. Hobbes argue<lthat in such a rvorld er'enone rvould be at erervone
clsc's throal and s()cieLv\\,ould be plagued bv anxicn, \'ioience.and constant dan -
ger \ Hobbes cleclared. li1'e rvould be "solitanr Po.rr. nast\', brutish, and \hurt.
Houeler. Hobtres also asslrnted dt:ll hLlman beiugs are suflicieldl radonal lo rec-
ognizc their irlteres1s.To arrrid *re $ar of all against all, he urged his rerders trr
for'm a porr'erlul government to protect dremsehes.
hgoists accept l-{obbess viel'in the followilg form: Anv ciever person t'ill re-
aiize that she or he has no moral obligationsto others besidesthose obli5iationsshe
or he voluntarih: assunes because ir is in one's ol!'n inter_estto agree to allide bv
then. Each pcrson should accept moral .[les and assumespecificobligatiols onlv
when doing so pt-omotes one s self-interest. Er,en il one agrees to live unrler lat's of'
the state drat are binding on evetlone, one should obev nrles and la$s onlv to IJr'o-
tect oneself and to cr-eatea sltrlation oI communal liring thaL is personalh advanta-
seous. One should also back out ofan obligation wheueverit becomesclear that it
is to onc s long-range disadvantagc ro fulfill Lhe obligation. tr\ en conliolted bv a
social revollrtion, the questionable trustworthinessofa colleague,or an irrcumpe-
tenr administration at one's place of enrpk).rment,no one is under al obljgation to
ober the larv. fulfill contntctsi or tell the tmth. Thcse obligatioris exist onlv because
one assurncsthenr, and one ought to assume lhem onlv as long as doing s,r pt, "
n](ftesone s own lnterest.
An arangiement rvherebv ever-r'oneacts on more or less fixcd rules such :rs
those found in conventional moral and legal srstemsrvoulclproduce the most de-
sirable state ofaffairs from an egoistic poinL ofvie*. The reason is that such rules ar-
bitrate conflicts and rnake social lil'e nore asr-eeable-These rules rvould include. for
c:amp1e, femiliar moral and legai principles of jnstice rhat are intendccl to rnake
e\ef\'one s sltu:lti()nrnofe secLrreand stable.
()nlr arr undulv narro\r conception of seilinterest. the egoist might argue,
lcads critics to conclude that rhe egoist would not rvillinglv obseLle convcntional
mles ofjustice. If socien can be stnrctured Lo resohe personal conflicls through
courts and other peaceful means, egoistswill rieu'it as in tbeil interest ro acccpt
those binding social arangements. just as thet' $ill pcrceive it as prudenl to treat
other individuals favorablv in personal coDtacts. Notice that rhe egoist is not saling
rhar his or her interests are sened bv prornoting the good of others but ralher is
clxinring that his or-her personaJinterestsare servedbr obsening impartial rules ir-
fespecriveof the ourcome for others. Egoistsdo not care about the we]fareofothers
trnless ir affects rhcir u'ellare, and this desire for personal ll'ell-being alotle mLrd\ ates
acceptance of the conventional rules of rnoraligv.

Egoistic BusinessPraciices .rnd Utilitarian Lerrlts. A di{I'erent rierv from that oF

Hobbes, and one that h:rsbeen e:itremeh influenrial in rhe philosophl of the busi
nesscommuDiq', is fbund in -\d:rm Smith's economrc and moral $,ritings.Smith be-
lieled that the public good evolvesout of a suirablvrestrained clash of c,,nrpcting
l6 LthicalTheon enciBusiressPfrcrice

inclir,iciu:rl
inrerests.-\ irrclj|idu:rlspursue their self:intcfcst.the ilttrrr, ri\.c
lrluLr:\
is suidr--.ibv an 'inrisihlc hancl. cn!Luirls rhar ahc pLrblir:inrerest is:rchierecl.Iron-
icallr, accor'clirrgro Smith. egoisni in commerci:ll nrnsa.tiolts lcads rtot fur the rr:rr-
ol all againstail. but rarher to a utjlitaiiin ourcomc dttt is. to dle rusesL rrurnDcr
of bcneflts for the largr:stlunber of persons.The tj ec rnitrket is. Srrith thought. a
befter mcthod olac]rier,ing rhe public goocl than rhe hiqhh risible and authoritar.i-
an hancl of Hobbet : ell-porr'erful sor'er-eienstate.
Slnirh belierecl that go|entment should be lirrrireclin orcic.fto prorcct iu.1i\id
ual fieedom. Ar thc sanie time. he rccog ize(l rhet concern r1ith fi'er:clomancl self
iuterest could set out ofcontrol. Hence. he pr-oposedthar nlinimal state rcguht{rt\'
acdvin is needed ro proride and enlbr.ccthe rllles ol fhe compeLiti\c seltte. Sntith-s
picture of a resarxiltedegoistic rvorld has capLi|etcd man.: people in the busincss
ancl economic corrrmunin. Thet. ]ile Snjth. do nol pi(:tnrc themselres as selfish
ard irrdillerent to tire intercstsof others.arrd rhcr recopDizethat a ccrtain elcnte11t
of cooper-adonis esscntialif their interestsare ro liorr sh. These peoplc recognize
Lhat \\,hen their interests conflict lr'ith the intereslsof ()thers.thcr shoulcl pursue
theil intelestswifhin the esrablisheLl rulcs of Lhecompclirilc sirne. \\-irhin rhe nrlcs
ol businesspracLice,thc! rLrrdcrsLand edtics :ts the ntrxims of :r suitabh, re:tr-:rinecl
egoist.Their vie1\is restraincd beceusese11:intcrcst is kept },irhin rh. boLrn.isof thc
prclailing rtLlesofbusiness for the sakeof llte comltiorr goocl.
\Ianv people in thc bLLsiness communit\ have activeh,sLtpporrcdthe \,ierr fhar
ll resuained egoisnlle:rdsto conmenrlable utilitarjan outcomes.This is.rne f()rrn of
clclcnseof e free marhet cconontv: conrpetition arnong individual firms adr anccs
tlte good of sociel as a lr{role. Hence. a popular viel o€ busiless ethics might be
ci:lprlrredbv rhe phrase 'Ethical egoism leads to utilitarial .rlrrcomcs.,'\ Smitlr
said. corporatiorrsancl inclir,icluals putsuing thcif intlividtel inrcrcsls tlrerclt\.Jlt{)
rnote the public good. so long:rs the\ abide br tl-rer-ulesrhar pr.otectthc public.
-\n e\ample is fbund in the allc-r,ialioDof rrorlcl hurrger. \Ianl no$.arg-Lle Lilrf
a ltettei life lbr rhe poor iD man\'trrltionsis the re-su]tof capiralisticbcha,"ior Thev
claior Lhat.as a ntaLterof historical lirct. capitalisticinvestoledtancl productilin. iD_
creasejobs. sociill welfare, social cooperation, \r,caith in socien.,:lnclnrorallv re_
sponsiblebehar'ior.The thesisis that thesebenefitsrccrLle\\,ideh.across the societr,.
all'ecring both poor- and lvealdr\r even if the goal of capitalists is p rrrrh thrrr r,r, n
cconomic gain.3

NORMATIVE
ETHICAL
THEOBY
The central question discussedin this secrion is .\\hat consritutesan acccpraDle
ethical standard Ii)r busiuesspracrice.and b1 i\'li:rtauthofin,is the standard accept,
ablci" One time-honor-edans\rer is rhat dre acceptabiii$ of a moral srandarrl is
deLernrined bv pre|ailing pracLicesin busint:ssor bv arrrhoritarir,e.pr-ofcssion-
genelrted document5 such as codes.\[anr, businesspersods find this vier.poirtr rutr-
genial and therefore do llor see the need lbr revisionsin pracricesLhar rhe1.find
alread\. comfor-rable and a(-lequare.
 Pracllce
Edlicrl Ther)r\irld Bllsirrcss t7

Professionalitaddards do plav a rolc in blrsinesselhics aDd will bc discussecl

in this book in sorrredetail. Lltimatch,, horvever.the irrternal rrorelit! of bLtsiness
does not supplv a comprehensile liameruork for ihr: nlanv Pr'essinsqrlestions of
business ethics. Nloralin in the riorld of business e\ohes in the face of social
change and critical philosophical argument: it cannot relr entir-elvon ils olln his-
Loricaltraditions. fts standards therelirle need lo he justilled iD Lermsof indepen-
dent erhical standards such as those of public opinion. 1a$, arlcl philosophical
ethics-just as the moral norms of a cultute need to be justilied bv more than art
appeal to those norms themseltes. For_this leasort. Lhe htcr par_tsin rhis seclion
are devoted to a discLtssionofrvidell discussedthcories end anahscsof moralitv in
the histor-rof philosophr.

Utilitarian Theories

Urilitarian theories hold that the nroral rrorth of actionsor Practicesis delermjned
b\ their consequences.An action or practice is right il it leads to the best Possible
balance of good consequeoceso'ier bad corlseqLrences fol- all the Partics ;lffectcd
ln taking this perspectile, utilitarians believe th:1tthe PLtIposeor furlcLionot noral-
it\ is lo promoie human \!elfare bv mjninlizing harms ancl naximizing benelits
The first developed utilitarian philosophical wrirings were those ofDavicl Hurne
(1711-1776),Jeremy Bentham (17'13-1832).and John Stuan \liil (1806-1373)
)1111's L'tilitaianisn ( 1863) is still todav considered thc standald erposition llill dis-
cussestr\'o foundations or sources ol utilit2rrian thinkillg: a |lormalt;ira tbu[dirtion in
rhe "principle of utilitv" ancl t pqthtirgncal foutclation in human naLure. lIe pro-
'grealest
poseshis principle ol utilitr'-the haPPinessp.lnciPle -as the forrrr(lation
of normative ethical theon'. Acdons :ue riglit. Nlili sa!s. il ploportiort Lo their ten-
dencv to pronote happinessor abscnceol pain. ind \iong insofar as thev tcnd to
produce pain or-displeasure.According to Nlill. pleasu|e ancl freedom fi-om pain
are alone desirableas er-rds. All desirablethings (lhich are nunerous) ere desirable
eirher lbl the pleasurc inherenl in them or as mearnsro pronote Pleasureand pre-
vent Pain.
Nlill's second foundatiol derives from his belief that rnost persons. and per-
haps all, have;r basic desire for uniw and harmou tith their lcllo\\ hrtman betngs.
fust as people feei horror at crimes, he savs,thel'hare e basicmoral scnsilivirrto the
needs of others. Nlill seesthe Puryose ofrnoralin as tapping natur-:rlhuman svmpa-
thies to benefit others, rvhile controlling unsl]llpathetic attitudes thet cause harnl
to others. The principle of utilit\ i5 conceived as the besLneans to lhese basic
l-tuman goals.

EssentialFeaturesof Lltilitarianism. Several essential feattLres of utilitarianism

can be e\tracted from the reasoning of ]Iill and other utilirarians. First. utilitarian-
ism is committed b the maxinization ol the good arrci the minimization of harm
alrd evil. It assert'sthal soci(]w ought al\l'a'S to produce the greaLestpossiblc ba]:lnce
ol positive value or the minimum balence of disvalue lbr all persons effected. The
means to maximization is efficienc\', a goal rhat persons in busirressfincl congenial,
I8 EthicaL l].aclil:e
Theor\ en.l Btrsiness

to
bccauseit is highlr prized throughout the econornicser:LoLl-fficieno is a me'ins
to
highcr prolits antl loruerprices.ancl tlie stnrggleto be nlaxilulh Plofltallle seeks
ollain ma:<irnult Prodltcti()u lionl lirltirecl cctxtonlic resourccs The lrriliLrrian
courmiLucnr Lothe principie ol oprirnal prorluctivitr rlirorrgJhellicir--no is 'rl rsscn-
ri:rl part of the tlacliriorlal busincsscolceptitrn of socien and a slend'Lrclpar't of
businesspractice.
\Ianv bu:inesses,as rlell as g()\'eI11mcnt agencies.have rtloptecl specific lools
such as cost benefit alalvsis risk as-\essilenr,or lllallagenent llv objccrires-all of
$irich arc strongh inlluencetl br a utiliradal philosophr: Other llbinesses do not
crrplov sLrchspecific tools, but make rttilirarieDjuclgnrentsebout the bencli$ ancl
.ori, ol l^,,off . ach'errisingcalnPiliens.end rcducing cliscr-etion:rrv spend-
"..upping
ing. Thorigh unpopular in the shorFter.rll,LhcseadjLrstmedtsare olten u'elcomecl
b.i..,r" rlr-..,er.c.1irectedat long_Lernrfi^lncirl impro'cmenr and i<_rb scr:,ri*. In
this lespcct Lusinessharllors a fundamenLallvutiliL:1.iancon'ePtion of the goals of
its ente.p.ise. Iluch the slilc is true of the goals of public polid in rhe lrnited
States.
Thc neecl bolh to minimize irarnt and Lo balance r:isksagailst benelirs has
beeD a perennial concern of lhe businesscomrnuninl for e\ilmple e\e'Lrtlles ln
the petiolculn inclusllv know rhar oil ancl gis operadons eiisr tenll()uslvllilh lr'ct'
lancLateas. rlaLerforr'l. ancl llslt However il thc derlands of U S consutncrs are to
be met. corporate ancl Public policies must balancc possibleen\ironlrerrlal harnls
agrinsr the beDefitsof inclusrlialptoclucriritv Similarlr"rhoseir1 Lhc nucicar po\ter
inrlustrv knot that L . S. porverplants ;rrehllilt \vith heira containment stnrcturcs t(r
rr'irhsrend internal feilr.Lres;bul dlev also recognizc the possibilit\ of rllajoI. disaster-s
such as rhat at ChernobYl, in rhe former USSR, in 1986.Plantring for such strr'rr-
trLlesrcquiles that lhe Planncrs bdirnce Public bencfits,probabilin of failrrrc and
rhe nlagritude of harm in dle evcllr ()f failLire.
A .second esscnti:rl feature of the utiliurian theorl is e tlLeln L)itltt' gootl' EfIi-
ciencl itsclf is simplv an irlstntncntel good; lhxt is' it is raluable suicth ils a nleans
grcr\\'th
Lo somerhing else. ln the corPoralioll. efllciencr is \i'Lluable as a lneans to
:rncl ro prolit Inaxirnization. \\'irhin the fiee ellterPrise s\slem ol comPetiDg firlns,
ellicierc,: is valuable es a mearts tortarcl rnaximizing the Pr-oduction oI goods ancl
sel1ices.\{ithin ulilitariall ethical thcon efficienr:\ is the means lbr nrr"inrizirrg
llLrnrJnq' o,l.
-g()od"
But lrhat is ac()rdinpi lo the utilinrian: An ans\i-cl to thls questlon carl
be formed 1rl consiclcling the Ne\\'lorL stock malket Dailv resttltson \\:all Street
are nor i triusicallv good The-v are ertt-insicallv good as a mel1]ls t() other ends'
such as financiai seclrrit\ and h:rppiness Utilitarians belie\.ethar PeoPle oLLghtto
orient their lives arourrd conditirxrs Lhatxre good in thernseh'es rvtthollt retereDce
to furLhcl conscqlrenccs.Health. iiiendslt\l, and fieedom liorn pain are among
sur:hvalues.
Ho\\'evcr. Lrlilit:tlirlnsclisagreeconcerlling 1{hat consliLuLesthe complete
raDg,--of things or statesdlat are good Benthen :rncll{ill arc hedoDists T}rer be
lieve rhat onlv pleasureor hapPiness(svnonvmousfor the purposcs of rhis discus
sion) can be intrinsicallv good Elenthing besidespleasLrteis insttumcntallv gooti
()r pracuce
to rhe end of pleasure.,rLdrnirticutilitarians-tllen. llelie!e lhat an! act
 Practice
hthicalTheon rnd Business l9

that marimizes pleasurc (when cornParccl\r'ith a1l\ alternxtire act a)l practice) rs
right. I-ater udliurian philosoPhers have argued tha! other lalLresbesidcsPleasurc
possessinrrinsic worth, fi)r erample, fricndship, knortleclF..c, couuse health. arlcl
beaun. L-tilirarians who bcliele in multiple intrinsic lalues :tre referled to as
11Lr.r./litl;.utilitaians.
In recent philosoph\. econornics.and Psvchologl',ncithcl the approar:hof the
treclonistslor Lhatof rhe pltualists lus prelailecl.Both approachcshale seemedrel
rd\eh uselesslbr pu.poses of objecti\'elv eggregati g rr'idel! different irterests Ar-
oiher appr-oach appeals ro indivichal Prefercnces- From this persPcctive. lhc
concept of urilin is understood not in tcrms of sLatesof affajrs such as happiness.
but jn terms ol rhe satisfaction of indiviclual pr-ef-erences.as detenined b\ :1 per-
's beha\ior- In the language of busiDess,utilit\ is measured bt a
so P€rson \ Pul
chases or pursuits. To n-rarimize a Person s uliiitr is to Pro\idc that rvl-richhe or she
has chosen olt'ould choose fron among the alailablc alter-n:rtives To m-1\iluizc
thc utilit-r of all persons affected bv an action or e Polic\ is to nariimizc the utilitr ()f
rne aggaegarc g1-{)uP.
Although thc prel'erencebased utilitarian apploach ro ralue has been rier'ed
bf man! as superior to its predecessors, it is nor trouble_liee as an elhical theor\'. -\
major problen ar'isesover nroraliv unacceptallle Prcfcrences.For-ex:rmple,an air_
line piiot mav pr-efer to have a tt$ bcer-sbefore goittg to \tork, or an emPlovnlent
ollicer nrv prefea to disc minate agaiDst u'onerr, \et such Preferences are rllorelh'
irrtolerablc. Ltiliiarianism based purelv on sLlbjectivePreferenccs is satisfacton,
tht-n. onlv if a rarrge of lcceptable prelerences can be lbnnulatcd. This lartcr task
has proved clilficult in theory and it iral'bc inconsisterttrvith a Pure Prefcrencelp-
pr-o:rcli. Shoulcl products like cigareLtes. lltrertorks. and senriautomallc rilles bc
1ega11;- prohibitecl because ther carrse halnt. even lhoush manr, people lloulcl pr.e-
fer to purchase thertr?Hou,could a Prcference utilitarian ans$'erthis qlrt\Liu1l:
One possible utilita an response is lo ask whether societ\ is beliel oll as a
rJrole then rhesepreferences are Plohibired and'"r'henlhe clioicesof rhose desir-
ing thcm arc frustreted. lf thesr:products l'ork againslt1-re larger objecrilesof uri)i-
rarianism {ma\imal public telfare) b1 creating unhappirress,rhe utiliradan coulcl
argr.lethat plefercnces fbr' LlieseproducLsshoulcinol be counted in dle calculusof
pleltrerrces. Preferences that serve to frusfale the preferenccs of others lt'olrld
then be ruled out bl the goal oi urilitarianism.
A third essential leiltllre of ulilitarianism is its committnent to the lreasur'e-
menr and compar-isonof goods. With rhc hedonistic rierv,people must be able to
mcesurc pleasurebleand painful sraresand be able to conpare one pcrsoll's plea-
sules ldth another's to decide which is grearer Benlham, fot example, *'orked out
a ncasurement device that he called thc hctlanir r:altulus.He tliought he could add
rhe quantitative unil-s of individual happiness, subtract dre unis ol individual un-
happiness. and therebv ar le at a total measule of haPpiness.Bv the use of this sl s-
tem it is allegedlv possible to determine the act or practice lhat {ill provide thc
greatcsihappinessio lhe gaealestnurnber of people.
\\rten Benrham's l-recloniccalcLtlusLurnedout to be of lirnited Ptacdcalvalue,
\Iill substituted the c terion of a panel of expcls (persons of requisite .\pui-
ence). BecauseXlili believed that sonrc pleasuresrvetebetter tlian olhers, a device
20 Ethical Theon and Brrsiness
Practicc

was needed to de.ide llhich pleasureswcre in lact better. The erpers l''ere desig-
rratecl to fill that [ole. Sul]sequenti\', this idea of \Iill s also turncd out to be of limit-
ed pr:lctical \':rlue. and the notion of ao,tirrrar"ar{rial\ras substi[ued in some theories.
Cor'tsumerbehalior', in this conception. can be empiricallr obser'red as paices
chugc in the market. If onc assumesthat consunels seek to rationallv order and
maxirnize their prcfercnces. given a set ol pr'ices. an olrjecti'c mcasurement of Lltil-
itl is possiblc.

Act and Rule Utilitaiaaism. fitilitarian rr oral philosophers are conlentionalh

divided into frfo tvpes-act urilitarians and rulc utilitarians. t\n ad ulil,itarian ar
grLesrhat in,rll situations onc ought to pcrform that act that leads to the greatest
qoocl for the greatesLnumber. The act utilitarian re[iards ruies such as "!bu ought
to tell the truth in making contrrcts" and "\bu ought not to manipt ate persons
throush adveltising" as useful guideiincs. but also as expendable in business and
other relatioDships.An act utiiitarian would not hesitate ro break a moral rule if
breakine it !r,ouldlead to the grcatestgood for the grearestnumber in a particular
case. /itle utilit[rians- however. reserle a rrore signilicant place fo[ rulcs. !\,hich
thel do not regard rs expe dable on grounds rhat utiliF is ma\imized in I parricu-
lar cllcurnstance,
There are many applications of both t\,pes of utilitari:u1ism in business
erhics.:'Considerrire folklving casein thich U.S. businesspracticesand standards
mn up :rgainstthe quite dillerent practicesof the Italian businessconmunity. The
case involves the tax problems encounrered bl the Italian subsidian of a major
U.S. bank. In ltah the practices of corporate texarion tlpicallv involve elaborare
negotiadons among hired conpanv representatilesand the Italian tax service,and
the tari statement initialh submitted bv a corporation is regardec.las a dranrticalh
understated bid inrended onlv as a starting point for rhe negotiarin€iprocess. In
the casein question, the U.S. manager ol the Iralian banking subsidian decicled,
against the advicc of locall,vexper-iencedla$\ers and tax consultants.to ignore the
natire ItaliaD praclicesand filc a convcntioDal U.S.-st\,le rax statelnent (that is, one
in I|hich the subsidiary'sprofits for the !ea1 \r,erenor draDaticallr trnderstated).
His re:rsonsfbr this decision included his belief that the local customs\'iolated the
morel mle of truth relling.rlr
An acr urilirarian might well take exceptiorr ro rhis coDclusion. -\dmittedh, ro
lile ar Italian-snle tax staremcnt r,-'oulclbe to \iolate a moral rule of truth relling;
but the act utilitarian wor,rldargue that such a rule is onlv a guideline and canjusti-
fiablv be liolated to produce the greatest good. In the present case, the greatesr
good rvould er'identll'be done br fblloting the local consultants' advice to conform
to the Italian p.actices. Only b-v foliou'ing Lhose practices will the appropriate
amount of tax be paid. This conclusion is strensthened bl the ultimate outcome of
the present case:The ltalian authorities forced rhe bank to enter iDto the cusrom-
ar v._
negotiations. a process in $hich the original, truthftrl tax statenrent t\rastreated
as an understatedopening bid, and a dramaticalh excessitetax pavmentl{as conse-
cluendvexacted.
 Erhical prectice
TheonandBusincss 2l
In contrastLo the posirionofrcf Lrtiritaans..rle rrr itariens
_ hord that r*rcs
hel'ea cenrralposition in noralin that cannotbe cotllprornisecl
bt rhe dcnrandsof
pi,rfi, ulJr sitrLati,,ns. SLtLhc,Inrprontisethreatensthe generalell.ectilcltess rl1 the
rules.rne | ,hsrtr.trr.e , ,i rrh ich rn.rxintizes soci:rlutilin. For the .rle .tilitaria'. then,
acticlnsirejusrified b. airpealro absfl.actrLrlessuch as.,Don.t
kil1,,..f)on,tbribe,,.
and 'Do1r'tbreak pr.onrises.,' Thesemles, in turn. arejusriliedbr.an appeaito the
principle of urilin,.The rule utilitariar-r believesthis pisirion .ari.scape rhe obJec_
tronsto trctLltilitarianisln, becauserulcs are not subjcctto chaltgebv lhe demancls
ofincli'idual circ.mstances.Lrtilitar-ianr-rrlesare in ri.o* I,irm
ai.l pr,rtecri'e ofall
classesol individuals,just as hurlan riehts are rigiclh protectile
of ali individu:rls re,
gardlcssofsocialconvenienceand monr"rr,"ao
n""il.'
. \ , , ru r i l i , r r i . r nI.r a r , . . r e p l rr u L l r e . re t r r i i, . r , r . I l r e rr r g , r c
r l r r rr h e r r r . d r l r i rd
oPtt'rn tql'rting rrrJcsand srricrlvolrevingthent.u,hich is
_Dcvond th2rt|he rules
should be obel.ed anh sametin.r.

citicisnu of utihtaiani^sm.A rn{or problem lirr ut itarienism

is l\,herherunils of
naPPlness or sonteother utilita atLrrluc c.tl1he me;sulrclJtrcl
cr]mparedt[ orcler
to dctermineLhebesracLionamong rhr altern:tires.1,l,t..ia
ing ,, h.iner ro open a
pr'siine,\laskrnrrildiifepresene to oii erploration
and tjr.illini,f,r. r,rlu
.loesone compa.e the combined ,.^hreof a,, increase "r.-p,.,
in ttre Jit supptr,.loUr. arra
consumer_purclrasrng pr>lr,'er lr,ith the r,alue of tvildlife preset,\,atio;ano enriron_
mental protectioni Hor cloesa r.esponsibleofficial_ar,
sar:rhe \\,illiam a.cl,\{eii'_
da Gates Foundation-decicle hu\! r,, di5r ibure
timit.d ftr,,Js'lttocared for
charitable conrriburions (1br example. as rhis Foundation
tr,,, a.lia.,r, Lo r,'rerna
donal vaccinarionand chilclren':health prognnrs)?
f, _rfrr","'r..i.l auclit (an
c\aluarioDofrhe companr.'s actsofsocialresponsibiliLvt ive.J*"Iltf*a horvcould
thr -rrLdir,,L mer\ LrrF dnd rn nrpnrr a c()rporation,s
ethicalasseLs anj liabilities?
r n c , l r t l u r r l r c p l ' i . r l r . r r, l r _ r l l _ g e , l f r o b l c ni sr e i r h _
r p { c l d n p J i i l , rl rn ! r r
J p.oblem that aft'ectsall etl.ricaltheorics.i'o,pl"
n,ul..r.,.iJ. ,ougt _"r,a_.."a"
comparisolrsof Ya]uesel'en, dar: including those
of pleasures,rrrai;rir*.r. fo. .r<
to so as e group to a bar.r-atheith:rn havean office
::.::
cause ):1,:l:::.icte parfi,, bc,
rrc\ rhrnk rhr ber tilttrion tvill sarisfr,ntor-e
mernben of th. gi,llp.
Utilitariansacknolledge that accuratemeasuaements
of others.goods or preter_
en-cescan_seldonbe pror,ided becarrseof linited
knorvledgeur,d ti',rr.. Ir_,
.i:h * supplies, admirristering t usirresr,til;;;";iil;; ".."*d""
:ll-11:,
ct-stons, severely lr,-hasing
limited knorrledgeregardingthe consequeDces
;:
of on. s a.tLonsrs
often al1that is available.
Utilitarienismhasalsobeen .riticizeclon rhe grounds
dlat it ignoresnonutil!
ta an factors tl'tat are needed to makc mor;rl
cleci:iotrs.The most p;ominent ontis_
sion cited is a considerarionoF iusricc:The
',,,,,nber :icriun ,frri-p..J"i"i' ,n. g_.,*,
balance of value.fo, th. gr""t..r of people .r,,r' b;;r;;;;;";
trcatilent of a minoriB: Supposesociervr_lecides unjustified
that tire public i'ntercstrs sened b"
denvirrghealth insuranceto thoseresdnsposirive
ibr the AIDS vi."r. i;.";r;; ;"
lhe interest of efficiencrl supposeinsurance
companlesare arlolvedto use lil.est!.re

---
22 l-thicalTheon anclBusiness
Practicc

cheracte -sricsthat are stetisticallvassociarcdwith an enharrcedrisk of A]flS. Final-

lr. srrpposeslrch policics \roulcl sene the iargcr publicr'sfinancial interest. Utilitirri
anisir seems La requift Ll7aLpubljc la\r aDd insuriuce coDpinies det)! corerlge to
AIDS rictims. If so, nould Dot this denial bc unjust to rhosetho har,e-\lL)S or are at
high risk for conrracting AIDS:
criticisrrs.thet all cntaileclcos$ and bellefiLs{rf
an aclion or practice mr$t bc \\eighed. idcluding, for cxamplc. tbc coststhat $,oul<1
occur from modifving a polirical consriurtionor r stateirent of basicrights. In a de-
cision that aflecls emplovee and cor]sntnersalen. fbl exampie. the c()stsoften in-
clude protesrs lrom labor and co[sLuner groLrps. public criticism from the press.
f[r-ther rlienatiol of emplot'eesfrom crecutiles. the lossof customerst,r cornperi
Lors. ancl Lhe like. Also, rule utilirarians denl that rrarror.,cost-benelit deter_nina-
tions are acceptable. Thev algue thal general rules ofjustice ($hich are tllenrsch'es
justilied br broad considerirtionsof utiliw) ouqhr to constrain pardcrrlar actions
and usesot cost-bcncfitcalculations.Rule urilitaliansrnainuiD that the criticisms of
utilitarianisin prerioush noted are shortsightecl becatue thev fbcus on injusrirtj
drat right bc causedthrough a superficial o. short-term lpplication of the princi-
p1e ol urilin. In a long-range vier,. utilitarians argue. pronotilli urilit\ does not
elentuate in overall uojust outcomcs.

Kantian Ethics

In 1999CNN reported th:rt olline shopperswho risired rhe Interner auctronsr.e

cBavrvere surprised to lind a "Iirllv fLrnctionalkidnr:v" fcrr sale br a man giving his
home as "Sunrise.Florida. He rvls ploposing ro sell one of his trvo kidnevs. The
price 1-radbeen bid up to morc than $5.7million belirreeBavintenened and ter-
minatedthe (illegal)auction." Alhough it nasnelcr determinedlhether rhisauc-
tion \{asgenuine, it is knolr'n th:rt kidnevsare for salein sornepa s {)f-\sia, norablr
Irrdi:1.One srudvshowed (after locating 3il5 sellers)that Indians \\,hosold their kid-
nevsactuallvlvorsenedrather than bettercdtheil llnancialpositionas a rcsult of
the sale:the stud,valso sho{ed Lhatsome men forced their $,ir,esto sell a kiclner:r!
L-respectivcof the consequencesof a kidne,vsalc.manl people look *-ith moral in
dignationon the idea of sellinga kidnel rvhetlierin the L lited Staresor in lridia.
Thev seeit asexploitation, racherthan opponunio'. \\'hat is it about selling a kidnel
that provokesthis senseof moral unfairnessi

Kdntidn Rcspe.tfor Persoru.Immanuel Kanr s (172.1-180.1) ethical theon m:\

help clarifi the basisof this concem. A folloter of Kanr could argue rhat using
human organsascommoditiesis t() treat human beings:rsthough the-llvere merelv
machinesor capital,and so coclenvpeoplethe rcspecrappropriareto tireir digniq
as rational humar-rbeings.Kant arguesthat personsshouid be treated as ends and
ner,er-purelvasrneaDsto the endsof orhers.Thrt is,failure lo respectpcrsulr! i5 to
treat another asa rneansin lccordance with one s oan ends,and thus asif thel were
not independentagents.To exhibit a l:rckof respecrfor a pelson is to r-ejectthe
person'sconsiclered judgmena, to ignore the person'sconcernsand needs,or to
 ErhicalTheon rrcl BlNiressPr'ac!icc

deDv the pr:rson the libcrn to acLon th osejll.lgmen rs. FoL example. nanipulative
aclvenisir'rg thet alttcDrptsto fr.rke sa]csbl interfering t,ith rhe potenrial burcr's re
flectivc clxrice riolates rht' priDciple of respect li)r persons.In the case of kirlner
sa1es, alnost all scllcrs are in clesperatcpor,ertr,ancl clesperateneed. Poientialh all
'
organ .lonetions t ill come fl_om the poor. ltile the rich a,,,oirlclen donatilg
rheir kidrrt--vs to lhcil relaLives-In effcct, the orga[ is treatcd as a commodit! and
dre onner of the organ as a means to a purchaser'sends.
In lilliLialt tireories rcspect frrr the htrntan being is saiclto be necessan' not
jLrstas atl option or at one s cliscrction-because human beingspossessa moral dig-
nit| ancl theretbr_eshould not lle treareclas if thev hacl merelv the conditional value
possessecl hv machiner-\',iddLlstlial plants, r'obots,irnd capita].This idea of "respecr
'reJpect
lbr persons" has sonetirnes been erpressed in cor'poratecontexls as fitr
'
the incli\idual. -\n example in businessethics is foond in the practicesof Southwest
-\irlines, r'liich has the reputation of tr_ertine it-scrnplolees and custt>rrersl'ith un-
usual rcspect. Emplovees report that thev feel l'ree to elipress the1nseh€sas indiridu-
lls aDd that rher feel a strong loveln to thc airljne. Followins the rcrr-oristatracksof
Scpternber ll, 201)1,Southrvestwas thc ooh iirlilte drat clid Dot li! olf emplovees
or rcclucc its liieht schedLLle. -\s I consequence.s()n1eemplo\ees ollerecl to rvork
o\eatinre. rridrout pav. to s.rve the coDp2inv monev t[1til people resumed llring.r]r
The lirrn prides irsell on a relationship $,irh all stakeholdersthar is a rel ionship of
persoos,rather than sintph a relationship of economic tra sactions.
Some have interpreted Kant to hold catego call! Lhatpeople can never treat
other persons as r mc:lns to their ends. This inrerpretatiorrfails ro appreciate the
subrletiesof Lhe theor,-: Ihnt dicl nor caregoricall| prohibit the Llseot persons as
meerls to the en.ls o[ other peoplc. He argrecl oDlv tir:lt people lnust ]t()t treat an
othcr ^aftlt?r.'a^ras a nleans to their ends. An cxamplc is fbund in circurnsra ces irr
rrhich ernpkrreesare ordered to perform odious tasks.Clearll dte\ are being trcat-
cd as a rleans to nn ernploler's or a supenisor's ends. but the empioveesare not ex-
alusi\eh LllecL lbr other-s purposesbecaLrsedrer'are uot nefe senan$ or objects.In
tul econonric cxchange suppose thatJones is using Smith to achiere her end, but
similarh Srnith is using.fones ro achieve her end. So lolg as the exchange is lieclv
enLerediDt() \rilhout coercion or decepdon b| either parn. rreither p:rrtr has used
thc other merelv for her end. Thus er.en in a hierarchical o.ganization an emplo\.er
.an be Lheboss\;ithout erploiting the eniplolee. so l(rrrgas the ernploveefreelv en-
tercrl into that reiadonship. The ke! to oot using olhers mereh'as r nlerns is Lo re-
sP!-ctthelr-aolo omr.
This interpretation sug3-ests th:lt dre example of the kiclnev does not neces-
s:uilv shorr'anr dislespect [br persons. Kant seems to require onl,v rhat each individ-
v,a\ wll the acr4)tan.e of Lhose pdltciples on *hich he or she is acring. If a person
lieell acccpts a certain lbrrn of acrion ancl ir is not inrrinsicallvimmoral, that per-
son is a lree beidg and has a risht to so choose. Selling I kidnev therefore might fall
into thiscateqotr.
Kant's theor-v linds nrol ai for actions ro be ol the highesr irnporrance, in that
it expecls persons to make the tighr de ctsionaJar theight r?asons. lfpersons are hon-
est onh llecause thev believe Lhat honest! pars, their "honesn" is cheapened. It

-
 l:thicrl Thco|\ ;rndBusircssPrxcri.e

seelnslike no honestr at ali. onh an actio[ Lhit appeiirsto be honesl. For example.
\\'her coapofate execoti\es arlnoLrnce thrt Lhe feasoll the\' nade thc rrr:)r':rllvcon-ect
clecisionlras becauseit rms g-ooclfor theil business.this reaso|rseemsto have noth-
idg to do \\'irh nlor:llin. i\.corcling to llrrrdan thinking. if a corporatior does the
right thirrg onh when (and firr the reeson rhar it is profirable or lhcn it lill cnjov
good pLLblicitr', its decision is prudenrial, not moral.
(lonsider Lhe fcr11o\.ingthree erianrples ol rlrree peoplc lllaking personal sacn-
fices for a sick relatire. Frecl makes the sacrificcs onh becausehe fear'sthe social criti-
cisn rhat would result if he failed to do so. He hates .loing it an.l secletlv rescnts
bcing invohed. Sarn. bv contrast- derives no personai satisfiction from nking care of
his sick rel:rtile. He rlould rather be doing other rhings arrd m:rles the sacniicc pure-
lv from a sense of obligation. Bill. b! conrrasr, is a kind-hearteci pcr_sr:lrr.
He cloes not
rie} his actions as a sacrifice and is norilated b\ the satisfaction that comes fi'om
helping othcrs. Assume in these tirree c:1sesthaL the conseqrrencesol ali thc saclificial
acti()ns are eclu:Lllvgood and that rhe sick relativcs afe arlerluateh cared fbr_,as each
agent intends. The quesrion to consider is $hich peNons are behaving in a moraih
praise\rorlh! manner If utilitari:ln theon' is ilsed. this question ]rra\ be herd to an-
srrer.especirlh iJ acr Lrtili1arianismis rhe theon in qucstion, because the good consc
qucnces in each case are identical. The Iirrrian belieles, houcler that moti\es-in
particula[. moti\€s ofmoral obligation-count subslaldallv in moral evahuLioD.
It appears that Fred's niotir.es are rloL Inoral motires but motives oI pnrclence
that sp ng fron lear Although his actions have sood conseqLreces.Fred does not
desen,e anv rnoral credir for his acts bccause the\' ar'enot IIroralh moti\ated. f() rec-
ognize rhe prudential basis of an action does not detract lioin the lioodness of an|
cl]rrrseqLLerces it mav have. Given rhe purpose or hrncti(D of rhe buslness cntr.r-
prise, a motile of sell:intcr'estrnav be rhe mosr appropriate motir,e to ensure go()d
consequcnces.The poinr. horvever,is thalt i1 businessexeclrti\e derives l1o spccial
moral credit lirr acting in the colporare self-interest.elcn if socien is benefited b1'
and satisiied l'ith the acdon.
IfFrccl's motive is not mor-al.lr,hiltabout Bill's :urclSarn'siFlere moral philoso-
phers disagrce. Iiant maintained that moral action must be notivated br moral
obligation alo[e. Fron this perspective,Sam is the onh incliridual whosc acLioo:
nav be appropri:rtel,v described as noral. Bill desen'es no more credit tharr Fred.
because Bill is motivared bv the emotions of s,vmpathvand compassion, not bv
obligarior-r. Bill is natlraliv kind-heartcd and has been well socialized bv his iamilr",
but this moti\,ation mcrits no noral praisc ftom :r Xantian. rdro belicves that actions
motivated bv self-lnterestalone or compassionalone cannot bc n)orallr praiserrr,r-
thl. To be desen'ing of morai praise, a person niust act froni obligation.
To elaborate this point. thnt insisted rhat all pe$ons must ac! fbr thc .ralicof
obligation-nor merel'; in auordancauil, obligation. That is. the person\ morive lbr
action rnust inroh€ a recogrition of the cluF, to act. K1nt hied ro establish the ulti
nate basisfor thc ralidin ol rules of obligation iD pur'e reason. not in intlrition, con-
science, utilit\'. or compassion. \Ioralis prorides e rutional l'rarnework of principles
and rules that constrain and guide all people. indepenclent ol their personal goals
and preferences. He believed that all consideratiorx ofutilin and self-inlerest are sec-
 Prir.lice
EihicrlThe,:rr!arrdBrNincss 25

on the
ondarv, because the moral \!'orth of an agent's action dt-pelds exciusivell
pre-
rnoral accepnbilin ofthe rule according lo \t'hich the Prrson is acting ot' es liant
f-enecl to sal. moral acceptabilin depencis on Lherule thrt determines the agent s r"ill'
,\n action has nioral \voltil onlv ifperformed bv an agent l'ho possesscs rt hrt IiLn t
called a "gooc1will." ,\ person fras a eood rrill onlv il the sole lrodve lirr actron is nl')rrl
obligatiori, ls deremlined b\ a rrniler-salrule ofobligation. liant clerekrped rhir notion
'I
i to-a fr.rnclamentalrnoral lan: ought neler to act excePt irl such a tr'ar dlat I can also
\\ill ihat mv ma-rim shor.rld become a univeN?ll lar:' Krnt orlled this prittciple the
jt
.ategoi.0[ inpo ati,re.It is caceSloricalbecause admis ol no exceptiotls ancl is absoluteh
Unrcling.It ii imperative because it gnes instmctlon about horn'one trust 'Flelp act He gave
serer-alcontloversial examples of imper-atile moral maxinrs: "Do not lie," ' others
in distress.""Do not commlt suicide," and \[ork to cleveloplour abi]ities

IJniuersalizabiti$. I(ant s stnleqv- 1!'aslo sho$ thal thc accePtance ut ter trin
kinds ofaction is self-defeating, because zrzilarsalparticipzrtion in such helrrvior uD-
clermines the action. Some of the clearest casesinvolve persons \t'ho make e unique
exception for thensehes for pur-eh selfish rcasol-ls.Supposc a persorr con"idus
breaking a pronise that $ould be incon\elrient to keeP According ro [anr' the per'
son nlusl hrst formulate her or his reason as a univer'sal rule The rule \\ould szLr''
''Elenone shoulcl break a promise wheneler keeping it is inconvenient " Such a
rule is contradictory, thnt held, because if it rvere consisterlth' recommended that
all incliritlLrals shouid break their promises when it l'as convenient fbr ihenr to do
so. the pritctice of making prolnises would be senseless.Cli\ en the n:rturt of il
promise. a rule allowing people to break promises \\'hen ir becomcs 'on\trrient
makes the institutiou of promise-making uninlelligible -\ Nle that allor\'s cheating
on an exan similarlv negates the purPose of testing.
Ihnt's belief is that the conduct stipulated in these rules could not be made
onil.ersal withorlt some form ol conradiction emerging lf a cot-porarion kites
rhecks to reap a profir in the \\'av E. F. Hutton Brokerage did in a scandnl thar lcd tlr
()1
the end ofthe flrm, the corpotation makesiselfan exception lo the sYsrem lnon-
e|aN transler. therebv cheating the s,tstern.rvirich is established bv ccrtairl rulcs
This concluct, ifcarried out bt orher corporatioIrs, \'io]ates the rulcs presIpp'-'sed br
the svstem, thereby rendering the system inconsistenl. Similarlr', rhe Rus'i;rn ett'rto-
mv has been stalled in recenl vears becausesupplie$ were not being paid for the
'universalized' (in Kant's
goods ancl senices thev pro\ided lf such pmcdceslt'ere
iense), suppliers w'ou1dstop supplvilig. Russia h:u alsrl had difficuln in establishing
a stock merket becausethe information on the businesses listed tas so ilrac(uraLc
lf deception 1\ere "universal" (that is, widelv practiced), investo.swoukl nr-rtiDYest
and a stocl market \\ould be untenable. Iiant's r'ierv is that actions involving inva-
sion of prilacy, theft,line cutting, cheating, kickbacks.bdbes' etc are conLradi'ton
in that the! are not consistent$itb the instiruti,'ns or PrdLtlcesthe\ presuPpose

Cnticisns of Kartianism. Despite Kant s cont butions to moral philosoPh\" his

rheories hare been criticized as nanolv and inadequate to handle raious problems
in the moral life. He has no Place for moral emorions or sentinents such as
26 ErhicillTh.ir\ in.l Brlsiness
Practice

s\rnpathv ancl caring. Ncither does Kant hate rr[Lc]r to \llv abr)Lrtrnoral chaftlcter
and rirtue other than his contmt:nts, ,n Ljrc m, ,d\e , ,t , ,hlig.Lri,rt. S,,rn,-pe()ple also
thirlk LharX:tl t ernphasizedunir'er\al oblisadoos iobligaLions.omnron ro all peo-
ple) at the expensc of particular obligations (olrligationsthat lal1 onlv oo those in
particrrlar relationships ot rrlto occupv cer_tainr_olcssuch as thcrseot a busincss
nenagerl. \\ibc|cas rhc obliqation fo keep a protnise is a unirersal obligation, thc
()bligatioD to gaade stuclenLsfairlv falls odlv oD teechcrs r_csponsiblelbr sLlbInitting
grades.
Nlanr managerial obligation-sresuh fiom specialroles p1a.edin brLsilcss.For
example. businesspersonstencl to trert cLrst(rnet_s according to the histon of their
lclaLiolship. lf a per-sonis a r_egularcustomer and tlte nteachandisebeing sold is iu
short suppll the r'egtrlarcustonterrr'illbe gi'cn preferenrialLreatmentbecausea re-
l:rtionshipof conrnitment ald trust jrasalre:rdvbcen establisltecl..Japirncse business
practice has corllerltiorlallvcxtended this n{tLionto relati()nsrr,ithsrtppliersancl em
plovecs: .{ftcr a trial peliod, rhe regular errDlor,cc has a job for lilc at nanv firrrs.
-\lso. the bidding s\stelr is used Lessfi-equenti! irr-fapal th.ln in the \\esr. ()Dce a
supplier has a histon rvith a firrri. rhe lirm is loral to its supplier'.arrcleach Uusts the
other not t() e\pl()it the rclatio[ship.
Horteler. parlicular oblig:rtionslnd specialrclationshlpsnlal not be lncolsrs-
lent l''ith Kantianism. becausethcv mal bc lornulable as uni\ersal. For ex:nple.
the rule "Qualitv c()ntrol inspectol_s hale special obiigations for customer saletv'
can be nade inLo a "unir,ersal'larr'for ail qualitv control insped()rs.-\ltlplleh FJlnL
$,1ote littlc about such particLll:u duties. hc lr,oitlcl agree Lhal a colnplere explana
Lion ol moral agencv in terms ol clun requircs an rccoul]l of rol, Lrni\'t-r'sal and par
Licularduties.
-\ related aspect of Xlnt's edtical lheoi'! thar has been scnrtinized bv philoso
phers is his rie\! that moral motivation involrcs i)rp.o?i.1prilciples. Implrtial moti
vation lllav be distinguishecl fionl the moriviltion rhar a person nighr hale for
treadng a lecond person ir a cer[1i]l lrav beceusethc first p,.-rsonhas e pat_licrriarin-
tercst in the weli-beingof the secondpcrson (a spouscor qood fricnd. for exernple).
A corventional iDterpretarion of Krnt's work sugts-est-s dtat if conflic$ aise between
one s obligation and one's other motilations-such as lrie11dsh\). r-ecipruL:JLiun.or
lo\e-the motive of obligatiol should ahavs prerail. In lirguing dg.tinsr rhis no[al
lie\!. critics maintain drat persons are entitled to shor,lfl.oritism io thcir loved ones.
This criricism suggess thar IGrrtianism (and utilitari.tnisrn as rvell) has too broadlv
cast dre requirement of inlpartialih' atrd does not adequatel'" account tbl those parts
of the moral life inrolviig partial, inrimate. ald special relationships.
Special relationships wirh a unique hisror v-are ofren recoilnizecl in business.
For irrstance, the Unocal Corporation sharplv cdlicized its priuc\)albank, Securit!
Pacilic Corporatiorr.lbr knowinglv rnaking loirnsol $1,35million to a group that in-
tended to use the monev to buv shares in Unocal lor a hostile takeover. Fred Hart
ler'. 6[1i111,1rrand president of Unocal. arguecl thil dre banks aDd tn\.esrneni
bankers rvere "plaving both sides of rhe same." Hartlev saiclthar Securin Pacific had
prornised him that it \aoulcl not finance slrch takeovel attemp6 three months bc
 Pra.tice
Theon an{lBusine\s
ELhLr:al 27

fore doing so erlci that ir had ilctcd Lrnderconditirltts in rvhicli thc bank fhas] con-
dnlralh leceiled llirr the last l(l \earsl conlldcntial tirtartcial,gt-okrgical,and engi-
''.\ f,lln lcar hisrorl itr \rhich thc bank
neerirg infrrrmarion ll-()nrLlie complnr.
has stockpilcd conlidertiel infrrrmetioD shoulcl uot lilnPlv bc casl aside tor larger'
!-oils. Secufin Paciiic hncl !io1atec1 a specialrclarionship it had $ith Urtocal
Nonethelcss.irlplrtrialin seeorset somc lelel an ilreplaceeblemoaal concePt,
:urclcLhicel thcon should rccogrrizeits ccntralit\'lirr malr bLuirlessrelalionshiPs
For exarnple. a major scanclaloccurr-edfor somc L .S. b:rnksin 1991 becarrsethel
Li
l ere caught lenclin!_m one\ Lobink insiders. Then. asiuvestingbecame nlorc Pre-
cerious in thc .ar'lv vears oi the twenn'first cenntn. sever^al coupani.s \erc in
rolred in qlrestionable insiclcr krans lo corporale executives.For example at rhe
hcigl.rtofits crisis,\\irr-ldLlom loaneclthen-CEO Bernie EbbeIs $160 lnillion for the
'srock 'l
plLrposeof his personal Purchase/retenlion." he essenceof fedcral rulcs
--o!e ring banks-to the extenl e\pli.il nlles e\isl-is rh:rt banks can lcDd nlone\'
to irrsidcrsil'ancl orrh if itrsitlersar'e rcatcd exa.tlt as outsidersarc trerted. Here
rh,: rrLleof impartialin is an essentialnloral constraint. Bv coutrast. 75 pcrcent of
\ncricr's I500 larllest corporations madc insider loans str-icthott the basisol par-
rialin r mosl loans rlere rtraclefi)r stocli pruchases.This partialio rnassivelrbackhrecl
'forgir.e'of pardon" thc loans:rncl
in 101)0-2(l(13, anrl marlr companies had Lo
r:hergeolf millions ofclollars. Loans at Tvco. LLrcent.\lattel. Ilicrosttft and \\ebvan
bccarnclanorrs cases,L"
-\gain, tliroughout rnuch ol 2002. corporale -\neica suffereda sericsof busi-
rressscandals.selcra1of rvhich enciedin dre binkruPtcv of cotrlpaniesand the crim-
in:rl prosecution of sorne corPorrrc execrrrires.\'iol2ri()ns of the demaDd tbf
impartidin ancl fair-dcaling were tidespread. ln a notorious casc,the rc.nlrnting
lllrn ol Arthur -\ncLersenhacl strch I closc ancl paftiai rclationship \\'ith its clierrr
Elron that rt coulcl not perfoln eu objecrire audir of the fir'm. Errron r\'asLreate.l
lirh a clel'ererrce. partialin. ald faloritisrr that contr-astedsharPh \\'ith its auditing
of other lirrrs. \\,ho nere treatcd lidr dre convenLionalimpat-tialin e]iPectecloJ an
arLclitinqfir'nr..\s a resuiLof this scandal.problents of uldle partialirvbegan to llc
\irlelr ciiscrrssecias problems of conllict of interest.In an 2ltterlpt at restorlng pub-
lic conficlencein a Iair and itrrpartial s\stem,the SecLlrides and Exchange Comnris
sion S[,(,) appr ovecl plans lbl a De\r'olcrsish t slstctlr thal rvasitself in dePendent of
(
the accountjng inclustrv and therelbre llore likelv to be impartial. Hou'ever'.poJiti-
cal lobbring alrnost irnmecliatelytaiscd quesrionsabout the impartialin of the nelv
pJans to assule irrrpartialit\'.
In concluding this section oD l(antian ethics. almost no moral PhilosoPher
todar finris Lrnr's svsten lirlh satisfacron'- His clelenders rend to slv onl" rhat Iiant
plovidcs thr: nain elernentsof a sound moral position. Bv appeal to theseelements,
soIne philosophers hale attemPle.l I', .on\trLLcL.t m, 'fl: cLlLonrpassing rheon. Thev
use rhe lianiian rlotioll ol respect for Pefsoos,fc.rtexample, to Provide aD accotlnt
ofhurran lights. (iorrsidelablc controversl Persistsrs 1o lt'hether ['antitn Iheories
erc aclcqualc to this Laskancl r'hether dtev ha\,e been ntore strccessfulthan utilitar-
ian thcoiies.
 E|hical Theo1r irnd Busi essPracdce

ConternporaryChallengesto the Dominant Theories

Thus far uLilirari:rD and [antian theorieshavebeenexamined.Borh rneld a rarien.

ol 1lrcral considcraLions info :r s[rprising]r,srstematized frante.work.center-ed
a.orrnda singlemajor principle-NILrchis altracti'ein these
rheories.and Lhc'ha\.e
bcenthe clor.ninant rnodelsin ethicalrheorr rhroughoutmt,ch ,rfth. nrertri.th ."n_
tu[v.JDfact.Lhevhale sornetinesbeen presentcdas fhe onh
tl.peso[ ethice]theo_
n, asil thcre tvereno arailablealternatives from rvhichto choose.Horlever rnLrclr
reccnr philosophicai *,riting hasfocrisedon defectsi' these
rhe.rics and .rr *,.avsin
$,hich the trfo theories ectu:rlh.affinn a sinlilar conccption
of the moral lil.e orienF
ed arourrd universalprinciples and ru1es.
These critics promote akern2ltivesto the udritarian and
. Kantian moclers.Trrev
believe that the conuast behvcen tl.ret\ro t\?es of theon,
lro. fr""r., o."r.riirlrr,"J
ancl that rhcv do Dor medr lhe atteDrion rhev ha|e reccii.erl
aDclthe lott\ pos[ron
n r t " . . , u O ' - n .F , ' r r r1 , e p x l . 1r -1p l . i ,e m e i r . i L , r u . r p e n r J p * r r p p l e m e r r r .n
tl l\ "J-r'r r J r - ' r n d
u i r i r . u i J nd l o r ' - ' a r - , r r r i t s h rr.l . - o r i r - r . h i ,J ra i - h r . . o
orr 'rrrrrr:rn
riBhts);(2) virtue Lhcories(whichare basedon chamcter
rraits):f3) feminisrrheo_
riesand the ethicsof care (l.hich are dispositior-r_based)
: and {-l) comnton Dloralin.
theories (rdrich are generalll obligation_j:asedl . Thesetheo.i.. ,frl ," pi., .,i t-
Dextlour secfi()ns "r"
Eachnpe oItheon hastr-eated someproblemsnell anclhassuppliedinsights
_
not iound in utilitarianand Kanriantheoriis.Although
it ma..,een js'if the.e is an
endless:rrrav of disagreenenls acrossrrre theories.
these rheoaiesare not in ari re_
spectscompetitive. ancl in manv tfals fhev are co[lp]ementan.
The reader mav
profitablvlook Ibr convcrgentinsighn in theserheories.

Rights Theories

Terms fronr nroral cliscoursesuch as r.,a/za,

gnl, anclobligationhate tirus far in this
chaprer dominated the discussion.principis and r,1L,
i; X"n;, ;i,o.,ur,. ,,,,o
colrlmonmor-aliLv theorieshavebeen understoodas sfaternellts of obligation.l.et
nlanv assertionsLhatwill be encountered throuehout
this volume are clalms tct have
rights, and public policv issuesolterr concern r-ights
or aftempts to secure nghts.
in prolessionat erh,c,,.busin.ss,J;
:tt-il.:l.11:::":r-oversies
\ n i \c ;;;1,. policv in_
t l r c . t E hr \ I n D r u p c tn . \ \ u r l . p r i \ J , \ . I h e , r l r l _err
r ri ro n n r _ n t .d n . l r h c l tk e . T I r i s
\erLrun\ l \llo\\ Lhf,rrights ha\e a distinctive
charactcrin ethical rheorv and vet are
' r , n n c , r e d r o r h e u b l i q a r i o n .r h r r h a r e
p r e r i o u . h b e e ne x a m i n e d .
In. rhe n\,enrieth centun.. public ,lis.ussioris about
moral prorections tbr per_
sons \ulnerable to abuse, enslavement, or neglect
have npictrllv been stated ir.r
rerms of righrs. tr{:rnv berieve rhar rhese rights
iranscend nationai boundaries ancr
p.rrhrulrr.g.\crnmenLs. For eumple, there continues
to be conLr_orersr over e-<_
l r ' r r r 3 r r \ cl d b i | , o r r d i t i o r j .i n f r , r , , r i e . . o _ ,r l l c d . \ c . r r 5 l r L , po, n d i r i o n , l r h J m a r r u _
racture proclucts for Nike, Reebok, Abercronrbie
and Fitch, Target, Gap, .f.C.
Penner'.Liz Claiborne,L. L. Bean.and manvotn".
.oIrrp"rri".. it
"'i.,rlao-"rr,ul
 Pra.tice
Erhicall heorr itnd Rrlsines\

issueis rhr: hunran rights of hrtnclrcdsof thousilnds of Iorkers around rhe globe.
LdcLer discussionare the riqhrs of tr'orkcr-.ro appropriarc \\'olking conditioDs. I
cocleol concluctfor the inclustri; open-facLon inspections,nel, monitoring srstcnls
reductiolt of the illiterac!.rate dnlollg \\()rker's.aDd collccrire bargaiLringagt rt-
nents.r; ln addirion. acdvistshare urged thai Arnerican conlpanicsnot do business
in courrtriesthat halc a record oI exLensire\io]ation of llunall rights. China. Nige-
ria. and X{vanmar have a1l comc uuder sclcre criticism (These issucs.;lnd others
sLrlroundilg violations of hrrman rights in srr_car-shop!j. ale discLrssed in Chapter .c);
see also the \iike case.ser in Vietnaln, in Chapter 10 1
L'nlike legal r-ights.htLnan r-ightsare held independelrrlvof mcnbelship in a
slare or other social organizatioD.Historicallr'.humarl rights et)hed from the no_
tion of natural righrs. As formulared bv Locke ancl othcrs in ear_lvnrodetn philoso-
pll', natural lights are claius that individrtals hale:rgainsr rhe state l{ dre state does
rlot honor-these righ$. its lcgitinlacv is in qlrestion Naluml rights were th.rught to
consistplimarilv ofrighrs ro be liec ol interference, or lillertv rights Proclamatiolls
(rf ghts to life, libern, propern. a speedv tlial. and t1-repLrrsuitofhappiness subse-
qLrcnth folmed thc core of major-\\tstern Political and legal doculnents Thesc
rights came to be unclerstoodas Powerfill assertiollsdemallclingresPectand status.
A number of iofluential philosophcrs hale mainuinecl dlat cthical theoln or
'rights '15
sone part of it must be b:rsed. The| scek to ground ethical theon il La rl ac-
count of rights that is not |educible to a theon of obligalions or lirtLres Clonsidera
rl-reonto be discussedin Chapter I l) tlraLtakeslibcrt\ righrs to be basic One repre-
sentatircofihistheon.RobertNozick,referstohissocialphilosophvasan'cntidc-
meDL rheor'!.' The appropriateness of tiuL description is apparent f.om rhis
pro\ocad!e line $,ith which his book begirrs: lndilicluals have riqhrs.anrl therc are
rhings no persoll ol group mav do to them irtirhour violatirtgtheir rights). Starting
from this assumprion.\ozick builds a political tireon in l'hictr sovenlrrrelr i.tLLiL,rl
isjustifietl onlv ifit protects the lirndamental r-ightsofits citizens.
This political thcorr is also an ethical rheorr. Nozick takcsthe follorving noral
rule to be bmic: -\ll persons have a right to be left free lo do as thr:v choose The
moral obligation not to interlere r-ith e person follons from this rishr That the
obligation follozarfrol-Ir the right is a clcar indication ol the priori$ of rights over
obligations; that is. in tlis theon' the obligation is clerivecl liom the .iFiht. not
the r:rtherrval around.
Rights-baser.ltheories holcl that rights form the iustiiling basis of obligations
bccarrsethey l-restexpressthe purpose of moralin, w-hichis dre securing ofliberties
or other benehts for a rightiolderre Ho elcr, few rights-based theories den) rhe
importance of obligations (or duties), rvhich thev regard as central to moralifri
Thev make this point b1'holding that there is a cor-r-elativitvbenreen obligations
;rril ril,hr\r 'Xhis e ri!,hr r,r do,rr to h:rve f" neans thal the moral svste of r_ules
(or the legal system,if appfopiate) imposesan oblilirltion on someone to act or to
refrain from acting so Lliat X is enabled to do or hale l'.!Lr
Tlrese oblig;ations are of nro t)?es: .\i?galir ohligationsre those that reqllire
Lhatwe nor interfere with rhe libertv of otheIs (thus securinglibert.trighls): pos;tiu.
require that certain people ()r instiluLionsprovide benclits (,r seniLe\
Dl)Lillatian.s

--
30 t r h , ' l | , , u r r . , l B . r . r. c . )P r J . r . L r

(thl$ securing benel-rLrights of welflrc rightst.rr (irneleri.cl\.. :1 ,zl3ztir. /7-d?1 is a

ralicl claim to ljberh. rhar is. rl righr n{tt ro bc iriLerfered\!it}r. encl e p,.Jilrif ngrl is a
ralid clain on goods or ser-r'ices. The rigltts rr()rto be beatirn.subjecte(lfo Llnrlena
ed surger\,.or sold inro slalcn lue e\al]lples of neqati\e or liberrv r.iehts.Rights Lo
lbod. mcdic:rl care. and insLLnrnce are exemplesof positiveor bencfit rights.
T\c r'rghr ro \lbern ls )rcre sarclto be ..negatilc., be(:ause no o[e hes to uct ro
honor it; pr-esumabh.all dtat lllust be cloneis to iealc peopie alonc. l.he same
rs noL
taue regarding positivc r.ights:in rtr.derto honor rhese righLs,someonc
[as ro pl_o_
\icle sorrlethinq.For examplc. if a star."ingperson has a Lrrmarrright to w.ell_bein3_.
soneone ha.s an oblie'adod to pr.oride Lhlf peri!.)n lr.ith f;od. ,1r has olien
bcen
polnteaioul. positiverights place an obligation to proviciesorneLhineto others,
\\.ho
can responcithat LhisreqLtirenent interferesrriLirthcir propern r-ig]rtst() rrsc their
resourceslbr their chosen elds. The disrincion bcnr,eenpositire and negative
r-ishs has ofien lecl those rvho l,ould incirrrlc larious rights tir wcll_treing (ro loocl.
holrsing, heahh care. erc.) on rhc list of hurnan rights to :trgue rhat rire oblisarion
to provide lbr posiriverighrs falls on rhe poliric:il state.This rlistincriorrhes intuitilc
appeal to manv businesspersons. becauserhe\ wish to limir borh the responsibilities
of their lirms ancl the number of rjgl.itsconflicts dte, must acldress.
-\tonllicr inr.olving nesative righrs is illustrated bv thc clebarc sLlr.rolrndins ar_
rempts 1t'"enplover-sro control the lifcsole of lheir e ntplovees.Sorle emploler.swilJ
not accept emploveeslr'lio suroke. Some Iill not pcrmit emplolecs to errg:1ge1n
dangelous activities such as skvdi\.ing. auro racing, or mounrain clirnbing. Bv nrak_
ing these rules. one can argue dtal emplo\ers are \ioladns fie liber.t\ righ ts of rhe
enplorees as \\reli as dte entplovees right ro prir,acr.On rhe other hand. Lhe cm
i:)iovercan argLlethat he or she h:ts a right ro run the busillessas lie or she secs 1lt.
Thus, both sidesinvoke nesaLiverights to rlake a moral case.
Theories ofmoral rights have not traditiotalh.been a rlajor.focus ol.business
.
ethics. but rhis siruation is changing at preselr. Fot.er.ample,lrnplo..eesrraclirion_
allv could be iired for tvl.rarsuperiors considered dislovelcon,:luci.ancl enrplo\ees
har'e had no right to bio$,'the ltisrlt ,,n rotporrlc tnjsrorrrlrL.r.\\lten ntember-s
of minorit\, groups conplain about discriniinatorvhir.iugpracricesthar \iolare Lheir.
hnmar dignitv and self,respect.oDe plausibie interpretation of these conrplairrts
is
that drose l,ho register rhent beliere rhar fheir moriLl rights are being ,ritrinsed.
Current rheories of empiovee, consunrerj ancl stockholdei righrs all proride
frame_
wo.ks for debates about rights rvirhin business ethics.
The langrLageof moral rights is gr-eetedbv sone trith skepricismbecause of
.
the apparentlv absurd proliferatiou of rish$ and rhe conliict am;ng diverse
claims
to nghts (especiallvin recent polirical debatesJ.For exarnple,sorne parlies claim
thaf a pregnant l\,oDran has a fight to have an abortion, rvhere:rsothers claim
that
lctrtses have a risht Lo life that prechrcles rhe fighr to have an aborrion.
As I,e shall
see throughout this volllme, rights lang[ag-e has been ettenclecl to inclucle
such
contro\.ersial rights xs thc risht to finarrcial pri|acr.. righLs oflrorkers to obtaill \.1rri_
ous lorms of information abo[r their emplorer., the right to l{,or.kin a poil[tion
free
enuronneni, |he right ro hold ajob, and rhe r-ightto healrh car.e.
llany {dters i[ ethics nolr agree thal a pe$on can ]egitimatelv exercise
_ a
right to something onlv if sufficienr jtutiijc:rtion exists_that is. $he n a i ight
has an
 ErhicalTheon and BrtsinessPra(tice 3l

a right to
orer-riding stalus.Righ$ strch as a riglil to eqrial economic oppormnin
m:rv
alo l\,ith one s ProPert\ rls onc tishes. and a right to bc sa\ed lrom starvadolt
bale to comPele \\'iLh other lighrs. The fact that fights theorists have failcd to pro
riclc l hicrarchv fbr righ$ cleinis tnav indicate that rights. like rlbligations'are nor
absolute moral demands. but rarher'olltls that can be oven_iddenin particrrlarcit_-
cumst:rricesbr mor_estringent cornpeLillgnoml claims.

virtue Ethics

LJur discussion of utilitarian, Iianrian, and rights-bascd theories has looked chiellv
ar oblig:rrionsand rights. These theodes do not hPicalh'enphasize the agents or
actors $rho perfbr-m actions, hare notives, and lbllon principles.!'et peoPle com-
monh' make judgments about good and eril Persons, their traits of character' and
their rvilli gness to perform actions- In recent lears, several philosophers have plo-
posed that cthics should redirect irs preoccupalion Nith Principlesof obligation. di
iective rules, ?ud.jtdgmenLs of right and \{rong and should look to decision
making b-vpersons of good character. that is, \'irtuous persons.
l'irl1u rthi.s descends from the classical Hellenistic tndition represerlted bt
Pleto arrd .\t istotlc, in rlhich the cultilation of a virttlous char-acter is \'ielved as
nioralin s priman lunctjon. Alistotle held that \irtue is neither a leeling nol an in-
iaLe capacin. but a disposition bred from an innate c:rpacin' properlv trainetl ancl
crercised. Pcople acquire virtr.resmuch as theY do skills such as carpentrr', Plaving a
musical instmment. or cooking. Thev becomejusr bt performingiust a'rions and
becolle temper_:ltebr performing tenPerale acti()ns \rirmous chamcte r. saysr\iis
r.rtle. is neither natrual rtor unnatural: it is cLLltivaredand made a Part oI rhe indi-
ridual. mtrch like a language or tradition.
But an ethics of \irtue is more than hallitual training This approach relies
even nlore than does liant's rheor| on the imPortance of haring a correct
nlatitlationl slruct1r.. -\jusr person, for ex21mple,has not onh a pslchological dispo-
siri(n to act lairll but also a moralh appropriate desire to actjusth The person
characterisLicallv has a rnoral conceln and resenttion about acting in a \l'al that
lould be unfair Har,ing onh Lhe motive to act in accorda[ce uith a rule of obliga-
tion, as l(ant demands. is not moralh sufficient for lirtue. lmagine a Kantian uho al-
\{avs perfo.ms his or-her obligation becauseit is an obligation but rlho intenseh
dislikes heving to alloN the interesrs of others lo be taken into account Such a per-
son cloesnot cherish. 1'eelcoDgenial toward. or think fondlv ofotheN. and this percon
respectsothers onlv becauseobligation requires it. This person can, nonerheless,on
a theor'l ofmoral obligation such as Iiant's or llill's, Perlbrn a morall,Y.ight action.
have an ingrained disposition lo perform that action, and act with obligation as the
for-emostmorive. The lirtue theorist'scriticism is chatil the desireis noI right, J nec-
essarycontlition of\irtue is lackint
Clonsicler an t"ncounter ]\idr a tire salesPerson.You lcll the salesPerson that
safcw is most importanl and thal \ou Nant lo be sure to get an all-wearherfire He
listenscarefullv and then sellsvou exacrlv$hat vou trnt, becausehe has been rvell
trainecl bv his manager ro see his priman obligation as that of meeting the cus-
toDler's needs. Acting in this war'has been deeplv ingrained in this salesPerso[bv
 pracrict
EthicaiThcon arrrtBusiness

llrs nliinagcr's tmining. There is no more tvpical encounLer

in the lorld ol.retail
..rLcsrlLJn,rhjsunc..Ho\\c\Er. \ulrpose nolr dlet \re go
behincj rhe salesperson,sbe_
1L:[lur ro Lis undeL]ri[g morrrcs ]nd desiresreveals.\{e fin.l
that this tnan cletests
hisjob-and hatesha\,illg to spend time ivith eren customer
$,ho comes lhr-ough lire
door'.He rloes not care about beine ol seflice io p.opl. ,rr creating
a bctter enri_
rollnenr in thc oIfice. _\i1he reallr r,.arltsis to tlatch the teierision
sei in r1le\rartrDg
lorrnse and to pick up his par.check._Althoughthis man
trteemtris nroral obligri_
tions. somerhing in his characLeris rnor-alhdel.ccLive.
l\:hen people engag-cin businessor rakejobs simph..for the
. profit or.wases
thal wiil resulr. drcr.mal neer thcir.obligations arrclr.t
it,rt be eigaged irr their
work rn a moralh appropri:lte lnanner. C)n the ofher hand.
if p-ersonsstirrt a
blLsinessbecause thel believe in a qualitv prodLlct_a nerr,,
l.iealthie, \ogurt. r.rr
example-and cleeplvdesire to seil thar prodlrct. their.character
is nrore i rune
with our moral etpectaLions. Entrepreneurs oltelt exhibit
this enthusiasni and
comnrtnrent. For.example. \,Iicrosoft and,{pple Cjomputer
emplovees rver.e.lbr
years.genuinely excited about bringile new products ,o
]nlnl -rik", rn Lire be_
lief that. rhc\ grearh. inprovcd the qualin. of lii.e. The
pracrice of busint_ssis
molallv better if ir is sustained bv personsw.hosecharacter
marrifesrs._ntltusia:trl.
rruthfulncss.juitice, compassion, respect.tulness. and patience.
Inreresting discussionsin ltusiless ethics norv a"rr,aa
. o,, the rpproprlale
\irtues olnl:inagers. emplovees. ancLo ther-participan
rs in business actint1.. as I,iil be
seerl ulanr dmes in this book. AmoDg the \iatues that
ha\.e recei|ed discusstun . c
integrin', courage. and compassioD. Hotver er, some alleged ,,r.irt.es,,
of business life
have been sharpr,vcontested in recenr vears:a'd larious
of these .,\.i.tlres.of trle
businessperson have seemed not to be /roral \irtlles. Cc,mpetirivcness
ana tough
ness are t\!o examples. ,fibrlzrzrhas long oublished e list
of the roughesr bosses.For_
maln years belore he rlas fired as CEO of Sunbean. _\1
Dunlap ivris Derennralh. on
the lisr. He had ear.nedthe nickr:rne .Chainsal,.\i,.fcrr
his piop",,in. to t,." p.o_
ple and shut doln plants even rr,hen rhe\,\\,ere Inarginailr
pr.ollrlbl.. 6.,ntap nad.
stock_pdce and prolirabilitr Lhe onlv lrordlv goa)s of
a lusiness enterpr-ise. Nlant
woLlld argue that ill his casebusinesstoughnes-s nas :r moral Vice.This exarnple sug_
qests that some business!irtues are subject
to cl.itic:tl mol.al scrutin\,.
There is another reason.rvh.rriirue ethits ma\ be jmp,rrrtnr
for business
ethlcs. A morall_vgood person !1,ithrhe right desires or
motilations is mo.e likeh, ro
undersland w'hat should be done, more likelv to be motivated
to per_tb.r" .;;;;.J
acts, anrl more likelv Lo form and acr on noral ideals than
u,ould i morallv bai per_
son. A person tvho is ordinarily trusted is one ullo has
an ingrained motlvaLion ancl
desire to perform righr acrions and who characte sticallv
Jares about morallv ap_
Propiate_ responses.A person who simpl,vfollows rules ofobiigation anrl i\,ho other_
wise exhibis no special noral character mav not be
rrustr!-o;h1...It is not the r_ule
l u l l n r ' . r . b r r r h e p r r . r , r rr l . r p 6 v r i L r . t t r r , ! , t , to
. b e q . n e r , , u \ .( J r i n q . , o m p J , . r o n _
:lte, svmpathetic, and fair rvho shoulcl be tirc one recimmendecl.
atlririred, praised.
and ireld up as a llloral model. llanl experienced businesspersons
sav that such
trust rs the moral cement ofthe businessrvorld.
 Praclice
Ethical Theon and BLrsin€ss

Feminist Ethics and the Ethics of Care

Relatedto virtue ethjcsin someresPe(rts is a boch of moral reflectionthat hascome

someof the themesIound
to be knoun asthe "ethicsof care This rheorr derelops
of carelo'lrseson
in virtue ethicsabolrl the centraliNof characte'but le ethics
rclaticrnshiPs-
a set of charactertraits that alg (laeplr rrlucd in cl.re P"rs"Lrrl
tht lile \'dLeablv ,rbsentare
,u-o",ttt. compassion.ltcleiiw' lo\'e' hlicn'lship, :rnd
espousecl
,J..r,.ri'-.t"i t.les and impartiai utilitarian calcuiiltionssuch as those
bv li,rnt and Nlill
eloqu-nr rrc,rk.,f
FeruinistFound.ltions.lhe ethicsofcare has gfolD out ofthe
is in'lebtedi() feminist
a sroup of rreenr philusophcrsLhathas contributedlo or
i ir incorpomtesir dl
iir]or''.' r"-i,rir,-tt is a tc,nr rtirl, severalnuancesof rleaning;
that ar'rg-
.;;;;t*,p of female-centeredreflections on moral theorv and Practice
approachesto
-.n,i, .i.ort."ivc convendonalnPes of moral theon leminist
First' the subor-
ethicsrviil here be understood in ttrms of th'ee norlnati\e tenels:
shoulrlbe identi-
dinarioD,inequalitr'.or oppresslolof\romen is wrong;is sources
and legal right's Third
fied art,l remedied. S.coir,1'l,orrlen dtset'le equal polirical
be
ih. and persPectivesof \rtmen aie T''ortltv of rcspect and should
"*p"ri"rt.". troversial' feni-
taken serioush. .{lthoirgh these tenes mav seem entirelr nonco
of elhics in busi-
nirr. o.n.t" that if thel ivere acterl upon, the theon aud Practice
ness.and throughout sociefi'.$oLrld be rudicalh'tra slonnecl -
forms ol oppres-
Fenrinistscholarsare committed to pinPointing and excising
not subordinatethe
sion a d to refbrmulatinEiethical theorv in a_mannerthat does
l.enrinistsof the
inleresN of rr,ornen'There are differenr urrclcrsrandingsanrong
ir' Thesedifferenr
,o.,r a"r of oppaa,taionand about ho!t best to acldressalld remed! 'feminlsm
of The
.rrr.t..,t"t-tai"tg, natlualh result in different hpes or c:rteilorics
on. malters such as
issuesate couiplex, ancl feminists rake diflerent perspectires
objecritin ol mor:rl
eclualin',divelsin. imPartialin, comnunit\" aulononl\" :rnd the
knouledge.
Norlretheless, severalcentralcomponenlsof ferninistethicalthinking mav be
in modern ethicel
delineated.Feminist philosopherspoint out thal rationalitf
most otten been un-
theor\',in particular in Ihntiin and utilitari:rntheories'has
of universallv
derstoocl in lerms of the formrtlation and inPartiai apPlication
thet univelsal
bincling morai principles.N1anvteminist philosophers[o\{ argue
of hr'-
p.i.r.ipi", are inadequate guides to action and tha! absract fbrmulations
ol rheir
potheiicalmoral situationsseparatemoral agenrsf'romthe particuiarities
social and his-
individual lives and inappropii"t.lu ,"pututt "toral Problemsfrom
rational be-
torical f.rcts. Further, th.u h"u" ..iti.i,"d the autonomous unihed
of the rnoral self'
ings that npifv both the I{antian and the utilitarian concePtion
imPartialit!
!-"ir.ri,ri.tpitilorophers generalh agree that l(antian and.utilitarian
of another ior
fails tc, recognizethe mor:rl imporianceof valuing the rvell-being
iriPartia]itlhas
her or his own sake.Furthermore,thev point otrt that a]though
imPartialirv can
hisroricalll been associated rlith respect lbl the individual'
EthicalTheon and Busincss
Prrctice

undernrjnc this \erv respect becauseit trears indi!iduals impersonallr, as anon\L

molrs arILliritcrchangcablc rnoral egentsrlithout distinctive rlecclsand lbilities Tn
adtlition. irrrparrialmoral er'aluationsoften pa\e over importatlt rlilTcr-en,cs irr .,-
cial, political. and econornic po\\'er that are clucial Lo assessirrg lhe morallv cor_
rect courlc of action in particular srtuatrorrs,
For erample. a stetisticaleraluadort indicaring that:)0 percent ol a !elecom-
murric:rdon conpanrrs wor'klbrce consists of women wottld suggest that the coirPa-
nl is moralll prajsel,''orth\. in this respect. Holrercr. a different assessmentma! be
appropriate if 90 percedl of lhe {-oilell are emploled as telePhone oPcrators and
cler_icalstall. Sinilarlr, in elaluating a \,vastedisposalcomPanvs comPetitive con-
tract bid, feminist philosophcrs $,ould urge Irranagenertl to look bevond the bot-
torn line if, Ior example.80 percent ol the cornpantisto\ic \rastc disposal sites ar_e
Lrcatcd in poor, rninoritv Deighborhoods.

The VoiceofCare. Femilrist philosophers hirve pointc(l out that traditiona] the-
o1-iespresent a concepti()n {)f nror-ali$ that 1ea!eslittle rooln for virllres such as em-
path\. compassion,fidclin, love. and fricndship. A1r understiuding of the conlcxt
o1 :r siLuation is particularlv impor_rantthcn taking int() accoLrnldre dlstjnctire
'voice'thilt iD 1\' psvchologisls.philosophers,end nlarlagcment rheo sts ha\e as-
sociated 1{ith $,omen. This distinctive rnoral stance \!as articulated in:r particular'h
inflrrential nrnner bv psvchologist Carol Gilligan in her inll.te:rti:alwork In a Differ
The voice is one of car_ernd conpassion, anci aithortgh trtost leninist
ent \ oict:.22
seholars do not associate this loice or penpectirc lr,ith rtomcn exclusiveh. thev
rrgue that it does represent :ln important conLr'ast to the \oice of rights andjustice
thar Ciilligan associaled 1!ith men.
This distilct norai perspectil€ is charactelized bl a concern r!ith reladonships
-especialll r_csponsivencssto the parlicular needs of odrers-and lrr r cr.,Illrrit-
ment Lo others' \rrell-being.fhe ideas Gilligan ad\'ancedon the basisofheI pslcho
|rgical snrdieshave been devclopecllrv those tho find thc same dilfercnr r.irr irr
contemporan philosoph\: Contractaian models of ethics.tith their emph:1sison
justice ancl rights. are firmlv rejected becansethev omlt intcgral vil tues ancl Place a
paerDiurn on autonina \ chaiu atnoDg /"1aDd eqlnlage]nts. Hcrc t]re ethics of care
offers a fundamental rethinking of the noral universe: The terms of social coopr:r
ation. especiali! in families and in communal decision making, are ttnchosert, inli-
,ldll. aDd aurong lnaqrals. The conrractarial model lails ro appreciate that parenl-s
and serlice-orienLedproltssionals,fbr example, do not perceive rheir tesponsibili-
ties to theia childre and customcrsin terms of contractsor universalr'ulesbut see
them rather in terms of cale. needs,and iong rcr-mattachment.Onl! if evcn fbr_m
of human relation vere modeled on an exchange could these f<rrmsof caring be re
ducecl to contract or moral larv.:5
There are additional reasons for rhinking that a molalit,v centered on virtues
of c:rrc and conccrn cannot be squeezedinto a moralitl of rules. Their franlclvorks
are funclamentallv dissimilar Human rvarmrh, friendliness, and rrust in responding
to other-s cannot be brouglrt under rules of bebaYior For exarnple. although a
larner niav follorv all the rules ot good legal pracrice in attencling to dre affairs of a
 Pm.tiLe
ILhn al Theon ind Busilless 35

\\'arnltll
balllfupr bu\illesspel'son.thc la\a er still does nor clisplarthr: scnsitivirrill.l
rlre ]nosf
dtilt this hear-tsickPcrson lteedsi \ct sLrch\iltlres of i good Larrrerlrar he
illlportxnt Plrl of llre enaarllllLcr
FerniirisLLhcoriesolfer n greill r-lcalto a retlectire Persorlinlcresre(l in lll1si
n.ss ethics. \\e sratlclto lerrtl ho\! bLrsiness r'elationshipsrllight be rcslnr'IrLre'i ro
rellt-ct the neeclsend welfarc of all sLllkeholdcfs.lllsIcaclrtflierrilg rclrtiolrships in
the brrsiness\or-1clas lilDdantclttalh comPetiLife-lnrfkel-oficnted. irnd corlllaanlal.
busirre:spclsortscan nrore r-erclihapPtc.iate LhiitInill\ rehtioll"hiPs ilru c()oPera
ri\'c, possiblr clel natcfnalistir (ltclr: a replecemellr\vor'l lor "Pilterlllllistic'I For
eraniplc. irt Chaprer 7. 1\'econsicleru'helher' those involr'eclin ra/ri rnighr recon-
ceile their IespoLrsibilides along these lines Agairr' cotlsider-:lmaliager rvho i! :It
teDpting to irnplcment a milndator'\ drrrg tesringpr'ograni Shc [rilihl come to an
inp:rssc end restrllcture her_epproach then shc finds that cmPlorers elnplo\'ees'
,,.,r,,r*.r. havc lcgitirnate concelns atld sensitilitiesebout lhe Prolirilm llen\-
"u,l
lerninisrsarrl man.lgerlent cxperts toulri Llrgc dle manaqelt{) helP cmPl()\eesto
letl Loncanr 1or-the cu-storlrer-s l\.hile also srriritlg tLr make the lrorkPlace cxpcn-
(rrar orla ill \hich thc 1\orker is lcss alienatt--dand hellcc lcss lilelr to take dmgs
Frrrplrree; can irr Lhis1\,a\fi)trre to fecl thaLlh{rvcan rrusl lhcir rnanagers arid tran_
rgers rrighl more readilv listen and rcsPoncllo their cmPlovccs
This rnorai theor has dre Potential to tr istbnl businesspractice lo e\hibit nrore
of rire characterisricsofa mor-elcommLlllinl TlaclitioDalnletaphors fol busintss pra t ticc
irre oflerl dn\\n liorn cornperitilc are :isl thel ar'e\\'ar ori(inted and sPo s oricnted'
Familt' n-renphors seen out of place. a.sdocs the languaqc ()f cooPcntion and fi)mPas-
sion. \-et such langlrage is undeniablr central to morllljn; and if sonre contclnPorar\
m:lDagement theorists are correcl. slrch languagc is cenlral lo sr.lccess iD brrsinessas
\rcll. Cloopenlion emone ntarlagen alrd elnPlolers is no lessilrPorLlllt lbr srr"ess then
pr'ochcr qualinr -\1so.thc businesstorld is still s!ructltred in \\'arsrhat make ir more dif
li.ult lirr rromeu to pursLle Lheir cereer on a lerel plaring [le]d xilh men-o' e\cn i{r
purstLc lemill ancl career at all. Suppoltive policies of libetal ofticc liours :rrail;blc
It'are: of abserrce.chilcl<:rre f:rcilities. and sLmtcgieslo Pre\'ent sexlral harasslrrelLcell
bc championecl indepcndent of l'eminist ethics or the erhics of.are. bul thcse ethicill
lheories ha\e urken thc lead in promorillg such lonns o1'resLructuriDgin iniliutiL']is
This aspccrofbusinesshas tredirionallv been igJlorcd as sofi arrd lessimpor-
tnnt Lhana stlong botrom line. There ere signs.hor"'crter" rhlt busilessrti]l in the fir
nlrc be lr]orc open to the contributiolls of lhc etilics of care, resuldng in an
improvement in both corporetc moralitl and corpolale Producdvit\'.

Common Morality Theories

Finallr',man' philosophers clettrrcithe rierr that therc is a common moraiitl that all
p.:opie share br rjrruc of coml]Lrnal life aDd thdL this rDofalin is ullinleteh the
soLLrce o{ all theories of mora}in. -\ccorclingto rhis ilPProach.rirttalll all PeoPle in
all cultules gror! uP 1!ith an unclerstancLing of rhe llasic denlands of moralit\" lLs
norms are familiar and unobjecrionable to tllose ()rnmitted Lo a mt>r;l life Thev

-
36 f l r i ,r l l l e , . ' . . , , . B , . i r , . . P , . , , 1 r , ,

know rlot to lic. not tutsteal.to kecp ptomises.to honor the rigitls ofothers. not to
kill or canse irar-nr to i.nocent pe'sons. ancl Lhe rike. rhe coninon nararitt ls sirrLph.
the set ot norms sharcd b\' ell persons seriouslv commiLted to the objecrir.esof
noralitl. This llroralin is nol [1elcl\ /znruL.rlinrhrL dttteLstrom ulitz moialities.raIt
is applicable to ell persons 1n ail pLaces.ancl nli hunan conducLis rightlr.irtdged bv
iLssrandarcls.The fbllowrns are c\lrnllles of tdrddr.lr of a,:tion61iei ofobligationi
in the contnton noralitr': l. "llon Lkiii : 2. 'Dorr'r causepain or sufftrins to others,,;
-'PIcvenL
3. eril or har-nt fron occur-dng : anrL-1..,Tell lhe truth..,There are also
nranv exanrples of moral (hairattr treits (virtucs) recognizecl in the common morali_
n. including: (1) noDmalerolence: i2) honest\.; f3) integritt.; ancl (4) conscien_
tiousness. Thesc \,irtues seen to bc universallv ad[rired traits of character and a
person is regarded as dcficient in rnorrl , h.r errcr if he or rhe hcls such lraits.
Thc thesisthar there are uni\ersal moral standardsis rooted in (1) a theon of
the objecriles of the soci:rlinsdnrtiol of lnoraiitl and (!) an hrpothesis about thc
sorts ol norms that are requircd ro achic\:ethose objectives.philosophers such as
Thomas Hobbes and Dalid Hume have poinrecl out Lhat cenLuriesof e.perierrce
del]lonstrate lhat thc humaD condition Lends|o deteriorateinro nriser.r., conrusron,
Iiolencc. and distnrst unless norms such as rhose listed earlier_the norms
ol the
cornmon mot'alin:-are obselved. These Dorms preveDt or minimize the threat
of
rhis deterioration. It u'oulrl be an o\erstatement to main|ain Lhatthese nonns are
necesszrn for rhe rur-riral of a socien, las larious philosophers and social scienrists
have maintained::). but it is n.t too mach to craim that rhesenomrs ar c rrecessar.o.
to ameli)rat?ar.ountpr.ltt thr t?nde,.i
Jat tht quaLityolpeafte'sliTre touorsen ot.Jat ln,nt
rclationshtft to tliintegnt,:.26 hr e\:er\ (e1l-fitnctioning socien nonns are in phce
to
prohibit lr'ing. breaking promiscs. causing bodih hirm, stealing,fraucl. the taking
of lil'e.the neglect of children. failures to keep contracts,anclso iorth. These norms
are $.hat thev tre. and llof some other set of norms, becausethev have paoven
that
ther' successfullvachier,ethe objectires of rloralin. This succesiin rhe senice
of
hunran flourishing accounts lbr tireir moral authoritl., and Lhere is no more basic
explanation of or justificarion tbr- rheir moral authorinr Thus, there is
no
pltilov4thiral ethrca]lTlteon dizir nkes r ior irr orer rhe corUmon moralin;
f indeed, all
p l r t l , ^ , p l r i , r l r l r ,u r i e . t . n , I r h c i r g r n r r n d i r r qi 1 r h - c o r 1 m o 1 n l o r d l i n .
These theoties do not assLlmctir.rte\ en prlson rccepts thc nol ms in the com_
mo-n ulorlrlin. It rvould be implausible to maintain that all personsin all societies
do
in fact accept moral nonns. Unanimifi is not the issue.\,ianv amoral. rmmoral.
or
c e l r e t i r e l rm n - r l p - r . o n r t l n n u t , J r r J L , u L o , r i d e n r i n \ i r h , , . j r i o u sd e m . r n d .o l t h e
comlnon noraliLl. Some persons ar-eltr,rlalh \.eel; others are Iltoralh depraved.
It
rvould also be implausible ro hold that a .tslrmdj.l set of norms or a ar.nrras&r
set ot
norms in a sociefi qualifies.as such, for inc]usion in rlte tatnmanmolJhw.
l.he no-
tion that moral justilication is ultimatelv grouncled in the cusromsand consensus
agrecments of particular groups is a ntoral travesn. Anv gir.en societv,scuseomary
or
consensus posiLion ma\ bc a distortccl outltxrk rhat functions to block arvirreness
ot
common-moralih. rcquirements. Some societiesare in rhe influenrial grip
of lead_
ers who prornote relilious zealoo-iesor-political ideologies that deparfpiofoundly
from the cornnon moralitr,.
 ErhicelTheon anclBL$inessPmciice

moralitl" onlv unr-

Frou the perspectir'cof thoset'ho emphasizethe conmon
and cross-cultural judg-
rcr'sallv lallcl lc,rrns t'arrant LLsin nlakinll interculturai
savagecrueln' and other
,u"D,. ubo.r, mot-al dcpravitr. morall! misguided beliefs
norrr]s, lve cou]cl rrot make
Inora] faillrres. If $'e did not lra\.e l.".o...,. .o urrir.eLsal
therefole corrld not be
1,,l..i.dir ti, ,.,i,r r't. b"F\'ecn rrloral and itnrnoral behar'ior and
oositiorrecltoc].i|lc]zee\'enou|].ageolrshurnanac|ions.sonreolrt]rich,1lcdlcm-
i-.f... f.o.fri-.a l" rhe lame of iroraiin' This rales us lo the subjectof Particul:u
nloralities.
arld er-en in
\Ianr'.justifiable ntoral norr-rtsare Particuiar to cultures' grouPs'
staudards Ils nornls
dirid.uals. iire common rnoralin contains onlv general moral
are abstmct. Li1li1ersal. and content thin- ParLicuiarmoralities tend lo be the re-
mar cont'tirl
\erse: concrele. rtonuniletsal. and colltent rich These moralities
ethics and indeed all
norms thaL arc olten comPrehcnsiveand detailed Business
are frlr'rnd
prrt."sirnal .thi.". lrr. erampiet of particular_moralities \lanv examples
Al-
i".".f"t.t pr,,t'csrionrl PrrctiLc institutional codes of ethics' and rhe like
thevuill gen-
thoogh rlr"i.'r.,1". .re likeiv to be unique !o sonre clomain ofbusiness'
nioralio--.such as
.r"lti'r"q.,i." lbr thelr justiiication ;c norms in Lhe commott
ancl rLrlesaBainst
nrlt'i ,,f iruthful clisclosrire.mles proLectingpersonsftom ha|n-
.(mllicL ol inLerest
in Prr-
\lanl mlcs hale been fashioneclro help control pardcular Probltrns
elaborate rllles
riclllar cnrironments For example, some illstitutions nol\: ha\e
Thcir rules are
.rnd molitoring srs,"rt-t,t,, aorrt.ol pat,blemsof sexual harassment
locadon or indus-
npi,:elh dcsignej lbl a particular iet of problems in a specilic
llrdicrous in
,.i. S.,.h.,,,1.,t migft be counterproclultit'e, unnecessar!, or even
other localions.
iife specitic
Business ethics is luntlamenrallv an ettempt to make the noial
clrltLlrcs
and practical. The reason lr'h! the nonns o[ businessethics in particul'r
oliendiffer|ronrthoseofano|hercultureisthattheabstnctstartrngPolrltslntile
creaLenorms
comrlon moraliw can be coherentlv applied in a Iariell of r-ars t()
and coti
that take the form of specilic guidelines, institutional and public policies'
to deter
flicr re!olutions. Lni\ersal norms are simph not approPriateinstrumenrs
mine prlctice or Poiicv or to resolve conllicls unless thev are rrlade sulficientlv
piuralisnl'
specil-r'ct,, tak. accoLlnt of financial constraints, social efficiencl' cultural
polirical procedures,Lrncertaintvabour risk' and the like
concrete
Geireral moral norms must be sPecitied Lo make them sufficienrl!
Specilica-
so th.l! thev can firncLirln as praclical guidelines in particular contexrs
comrnon
tion is not a pt-ocessof producing general norms such as tirose in the
inde-
moraiin'; it asstlnes thar thel are alreadvavailable Specilicationreducesthe
terminateness and abstractness of gcneral norms to gil'e them increased actioD-
origir-ral
guiding capacitl, n'ithout loss of the moral commitmerts in the
judg-
n.r.m1."1.ttiio, exampl., the norm that $'e must "respect the autonomous
ruent o[ coilpetent persons" cannot. unless it is specified handle complicaterl
in a
problems of wheth.r w,rtke.. have a right to kno\\' aboul polential dange$
l'il1
ihemical plant. This till all har"eto bc specified The plocessofspecification
even
halc to become increasingiv concrete as ns11'problems emerge That is
38 Ethicai Theo|r and Businesspracrice

alread\ specificd rulcs. guiclelines.policies, and cocleswill

almost a1$,avshave to
be specificd further to handle nelv or unanticipated circulnstances.
As defenders of rhe comnon moralir, positiorrsee it, this is
the \\,al blrslncss
ethics aclralh rrorks. and it is througb rhis progaessivespccilication
th.tr \c rcrarn
thc corrlnton Droralitl and make moral progrerr. Tlr" .o-Irron
noralitl can be e\_
Lended as llrr as rvc need to extend it ro rneet practical objectivcs.
there is, of
course- alnJalsthe possibilitr of dereloping mor-e than onc
line of specitication
lrhen co[fionting paactica] probiems end moral clisagrecnien$.
IL is to Dc expecLc(t_
itrdecd. ir is unavoidab]e-t]iat difiirent pcr.sons g.o,,p. lvill olfer conflicrirre
spccilications to resolve conflicts or ragllene.s.In "rr,l ant.eir..n problematic or dilem_
madc case. se\eral competing specifications mav be offer-ed b| reasonable
ancl fair-
miudcd parties. all of r,r'hon are seriols abour maintairringliclelirr.
to Lhe conmon
moralitl:
For example. manv internadonal organizationsand multinational
. corpora_
tions a-r-ecurrentlv strugeling wirh rhe n:rture of Lheir obligarions
to prorect rhe pri_
|ac\ of p:ltienr. ciient, and customer records.A strikirrg
eiample is the problern of
ll()rr' to rewr'ite mles of privacv in the Sl.iss banking sw"-,
\uiriah i. 1ol, lltoerso-
ing ttrassirechanges in its understanding of obligarions
to supph inior-ntation lo
thil .1 parties. It is apparent that thr re ar e m anr :ilccrc rrtcmp 'in
r. S!\,irzet_landand
clse$.hereto addressthis issueand rhrt obljgdriuns,,i dis.losur.
and prilacl l.ill be
l ' \ p r c . . s d d i H e r - n r l vi r r d i - r , r r r i n . r i r u r i o n . T
. h e r e i . r r , rr e , s n n r . , r i r i r r l r h . r r, r r h
one set of prir:ro,.protection rules isjustifiable.
Ihis di\.eriiq does not distress defenders of a comnon_rnoralit\,
rheorlt be_
cause thev believe that all rhar w,e can ask of mo.al agents
is rhat ther impartiailv
arrcl faithftilll specifr rhe nornN of rhe comlnon moialjrv
l.ith an ei,e to overall
r l o r . r l e n l r e te n e c .

A Prologue to Theories ofJustice

-\Iartvrules and principles lbrm lhe ternls of cooperation

in societrtSocietvis laccd
I ' i t l r r m p l i , i t .a r r d e r p l i , i r e r r i r q e m e r r . . , n . l o e , , . n , . n r .
r r n r l - r r r l r i ,f 1 i , , , l i r i J r r i
llt e oDLrg-rLed Lu.oL,pcrate or rhsLJiI from interfering I,ith others. philos()phers
are
rnterestecljn thejustice of these terms uf tu"p.rari,rit.
Ther po.r ctuesrionssuch as
j ] : : ' 1 t 1 , , q i r r . 6 n . p s l . 6 n, , r g r n u po r p r o p t -r t r c, i q t , i o . r f . , , , , . , p . r , , , , , , ,
nom anotherpersonor groupof peoplein sone societal interchange(espccialh.
an econolllicone) if the fornter benefitand the latterdo noi?
Is it jusi for somecit_
izensro have rnore properw rhal others:Is ir fair for oa"
paa,ori,o gurn ur, aarr_
nomic advantaseover another.ifboth abidestrictivbv existins
societalrulesl
In rheir atrempLsto answersuch questions,rcrne philoso'phers
believe thar di_
versehumanjudgmenrs and belicfsaboutjuslicecan'be
brought inb s_vsremarrc
unit\,.rhrougha generidtheo'. ofjustice.Justice hasbeenarrotr,r.aait"r.rr,lr, lr,r,,.
(\cr..in ri\rl atrdottcn ineomprrrbletheo es.These
generalnormativctheoriesof
Itl\tl(c are trearEdrn ( haptcr 10.Here ]{e neednote onh,thaLa kev clistinction
be_
F"teelnju,stfroccda.esandjust rrstlr existsin the literature
onjustice.
 Ethical Theon' ald BusilressPrecrice 39

Idcallv. it is preferable to h:rve both. but this is not alt'avs possible For eram-
ole. a petson might achielc ejust r_esltltin r_eciisrr ibuting rveahhbut mlght use an
of certain
onjLrsr'procedure to achier'e that rcsult. such as undesen'ed taxation
qr;rLps.Bl colltrast,jusLprocecluressometilles evenlllateil unjust rcsults es rvhen
e llirl trial finclsan innocent person gtliltv Some ruritersin brLsincss eLhirsare ct'n-
cer1]ccl\,ith isslresoI pr_ocedutaljusticelr'hen ther disclrsssr'lchconcern\ :l\ the Ltse
of orlbudsnen. gricvance procedures,Peer revie\!.and arbitntion Procedu'es'
\lanl problents oljustice lhit a cooP€ratil'esocieL!must handle involve some
slstem or ret..,l procedures that fostcr. but do not ensure.just outcoriles Once
rirere is ag...meot on appropriate procedules. the outcome must be accePtecl as
just, even if it procluccsineqr.raliries that seem unjust b\ othcr standards lf proce-
iural jusrice is rhe best that can be attained-as, for example. is clainre'l in lhe
crirninirljustice slstem-socieLr should accePt the results of its slstem rljrh r ccrtarn
amounr;f huniliw ancl perhaps make allorvanccsfor ineritable ineqrralitiesand
e\,en inequities and misibnunes.

OFCASES
ANALYSIS

Er elr subsequelt chapter of this volume contains casesin1'olring business ectir ities
es NeLl as juclicial opinious ("case lalr"'). Thougl-r these cases do not deri\e frotl
nolal phitsophl, thev merit uroral analvsis The t'rJ' ?l"i'or! as ir is ofcen called' has
Irng been useclin larvand businesslbr such prlrposes Recenth phiiosophical ethics
has clrarvn altention to the imPottance ol case s dies bur their use is still contro
versialand unsettled.

The Case Method in Law

Casc lat' estabiishesprecedents of evidence :rnd jusrification. The eariicst devel-

opmr:nrs in the la$ s use of the case method occurr-ed around 1370, rvhcn
Chlisrophel Columbts Langdell r-erolrrtionizedacademicstand2lrdsand teaching
rechuiqires bl introclucing this sl'stem at the Hanar-d Laq'School.es Langdell's
Le\Lbookscontai ed calsesselectedand arranged to reveal the Per\'asl\'emeanlng
of legal terms and the rules and principles of law. He enlisioned a di:rler:ticalor
Socratic manner of argument to show students how concePts.rules' and princi-
pies are found in the legal reasoning o1'the judges who lvrote the oPinions A
reacher or legal scholar was to ertract fundamenral principles, rnuch in the wav a
skilllul biogripher might extract the principles of a Person'sreaso[ing bv studl'
irlg his or her consideredjudgments
Hol'ever. Langdell's "principles" did not prove lo be as invariant or es c'-rnsis
tcntl\ applied across coll.ts. contexts, or limes as Langdeli had anticipated lt
turned out that incompatjble and rival theories or aPProaches bv judges tended
to control malv of the precede t cases. Nevertheless. the case method ultimatelv
-10 LrhicalTheoF aur]Busirless
Pracri.e

prcr'rile{i irr Li.S. lar\ schools, and srill todtv rhe stuch ofcascs offers reachersand
studen$ e powerflll tool lbr g-tlcL-rlizirLulront t.rrrs. Tn rh( thl Ltst-an.l-parnclass,
ro()m setting, tcicher aDd srudent alike leach coltclusi()nsabout Lhe rights and
\\'ronr.rsli)uncl in the c:rscsthel read,

The Case Method in Business

\\hen rlie Hanard Business School uas opened in 19011.its first dean. Echlin F_Gar,.
adopted the Lar! School curr'iculum a-.a proton?e lbr cou$es on conlmerciai L1\r:ln(l
e\entualh :ls a model thr-oughout rhe businessschool. B\' I919 the merhod had rrkcn
hold. and erentualh,it cane to cl.rnindtebrsincssrth, rolr rhJl rlrtphasize.lc]iberatioll
ancl decision nafing, rveighing competing considemtions. ar]d reachilrg a decision ir-r
corrplex ancl dilficult circurnstances.:!)Judgnent, nther thtn doctrine. principle. or
lact, ras taught. (,ascsrhar coulcl not be resoi\ed bv reference to atailable principles or
preccden$ \!erc prelel-red fbr instructiona] pur?oses over those rhat cou.ld be r'ea<lilr
rcsohed. Thus. cases\{ere selecte.l hecauseLhe\'\rere 'hard cases."
(lases prepared for sruc.lvunder this mcthod npicalh rccreate a otaltilllerial
sitLrarionin rvhjch dilemmas ale co[frontcd. Casesare noL printarilr-used ro illus-
Lnte principlcs or'rules, becauseLhelatter abstractionsare generalivinadequare ibr
llnal resolurions in real-rvorldbusinesssiruarions.The objcctire is to develop a ca_
pacin to glasp problems and ro find novel soiutions that work in verv puzzling cir
cLrllsta[ces: Krtouing hort to think and act is more prized than hnou,in{ tllat
sonlethins is the caseor th:rr a pr.incipleapplies.
This use of rhe casemerhod in busiless schoolssprings from an ideal of edu-
calion that pllts the student in tlte decision making role alier aD initial irnrrrersion
irto the facs of a comple\ situation. Theories and gener.alizations are tlou.nplalecl
in this pedagogt. and the skills of thinking and acting in colrrple\ and u[cer tairr en-
\'lronments are upgraded. The essenceof the cascnethod is to present a situation
replete rvith dre facts. opinions. and prejudices an erecutile misht encolrnter
loften in an actual cise) and to help the student hncl a \!av to make decisious in
sucll :lD envllonrnenL,
This method makes no assLllnption that there is a ngrt an${er t{) anv problcnl
bur meintains onh.that there are more oa lesssuccessful.$,ats ofhandling protrlems.
L-nderstandingargunent and analvsis(asdiscussedin the lirst secrionof this chap
ter) is more important than unclerstanding subsnndve theories (as presented in
lhe second secrion). These lbms of understanditg need not be antagorristic or
competitive, but the case nethod in businessschoolshas placed rhe prcnium on
problem-basccl anairsis. rarher than on anahsis bv appeal to rheon.. This method
aLsoavoids dre authorin.based method relied on in law schools,where.juclgesand
rhe bod! ol laN are overridiDg authorities.

The Case Method in Ethics

The term .d.rulJir.)is nol! cotnnoniv used in ethics to refer to a nethod of using
cases k) anilvze and propose solutions to moral problems. Casuist5 see ethics as
basecl on seasonecl experieuce in resolving hard cases.30 Thc casuistical me*rod is
 [thical T]reon'and BusinessPr:rctice .ll

fo sfar_r\.filli lantlign ceses$'hose conclusions on ethicai matters ale \elfled and

theD Lo cornPare and contLlst tht- ccntr'al features in the paratiign cases\!'i1h the
feaurtes of casesin nlee.lof a decisio[.
To illustratc rhis poir'tt,cotrsidera cotlpalisorr lo clse larl arrd Lhecloct|i e of
precedenr.Juclicialdecisionshale rhe porenrial to become allthor-itativefor other
irLclqes tr_henLhc! conliont sirnilar-cases in similar circLlnstaDcesCorlteolPoran cl1-
-s,,isir.
pl.ces a ,,ntttpar_eb1e premiurr on case authoin. logether \\ith a strong Prel:
crerlce for alalogical reasorringo\:er elhical thcon and abstract prilrciPles lt is
analogicalrensoningthat links one casct() lhe ne\t. Xloral reasoningoccllrs bv aP_
peal ro analoeies.models. classificationschemes,ancieren immediate innririon and
J i . . , n i r g i r r . r e \ r. r h o r r pr r r r i , u l . r r t .
flasuistselso maintain thatprinciples attd nrles afc t\Picalh too indeterlnlnate
ro rielrl specific noral judgments. It is therefore impossible. casuistsiusist, that
thelc be a unidirectional movernent of thought ftom principles to cases-{-hat has
ofiel been called the "application" of a P.jnciPle to a case.Nlolcover.ftom a casu-
ists perspectilc, p Dciplesare mereh'summariesofpeoples expericncein reflect
ing on cases.not independent norrlr5.
There is nruch in rhesecasuisticalarerrments that is rerealing ald worth serious
consideration. but casuistssometimes trire as though casesleacl to moral paradigms
or-juclgnrent-sentirelv br their facts alone. This rhesisseemsmistakcn. The pL'pcr tie"
that pcople obsene to be of moral importance in casesate selectedbl the lalues that
ther'hare alrcedr acceptedas being morallv imponant or have come !o -rppreciate
rthile eraminilg the case.No natter holr,maDy salient facls ar_eassembled,there lvill
srill need to be sone lalue premises in order to reach a tnoral conclusion
Lppcals ro "par:rcligm cases" can easily conceal this fact. These "cases" might
jusr as rtell be called "casesthat contain a norm.' Paradigln casesgain statusas P:u-
adigns becarrseofsolne colnmilment lo central lalues that are Prescn'edliom onc
cilse to tilc next case.For someone to mo\:e conslrucdveh froni caseto case. t)ne of
more \'ailres [llrst connect the cases.E|en to recognize a case as a paradigm case is
to accept!!bate\er p nciples or valuesallot'rhe paradigmsro be extended to other
cases.\\ihaLever can be learned fiom a case and then exportecl lo another c:lse can
not be entirei\ specifrc to the first case: oni! some lorm of general nor-m (rheory
princ\rle. rule) can lead to the next case.

Ethical Theory and Case Analysis

There are clangers iD transfcrring the case methods irl lar and businessto brisiness
edrics.Not much is drear'ierthan a redious and unrewarding exposureto the moral
opinions of rhose ignorant of the kinds of material outlifled in the first and second
parts of rhis chapter Sruchirrg casesin business erhics is facilitated bv a Lnorlcdge
of thc liiston of ethics and t\,pes of ethical theor\'. Theon and history horvever,also
should not renrain isolared liom modilicatioD bv case studr'. Seveul reasons sup-
Port thisjudgnleDr.
First. it seemsmistaken to sal that ethical theon'is nor ertracted from the exam-
inadon of casesbut onl,vapplied to or specified in cirscs.L.rse5n, 't ,)nl' provide data
for theon but also act as the resting ground for dreories. Illuminatins caseslead to
12 [rhical T]rcorr err.lBusilesspfilctice

lnodilicalion :1ndrcliDcrrenr_s of rhcorerjcillcomnlitrnenls.cspe.riellrb! poirrring to

linriurtiorrsofthcorics. hr rhir.rkin!rtlrr-oughrhc possiblerole oicasc
analrsisin cthics.
ir is useiitl to cotrsiderJohDRarriss celebrateclaccount of*rcflectjve .rlt
rrlil,rit Lu1...TD
cie|clopingan erhi.i1lrheon. he er.grre-s. ii ls appropriaicto ,tarr \\.iLlrrhe br-r)adesr pos_
sible .rctofconsidered rnot-al.juclgrrients aDclro e, ect a prc,lisionalserofpriDciplcs rhat
'eilects them. Rcllectiveeq.ilibriturr vicrrs erhicsas a t\:N of tcslinir
o'.,r:rl 'eliefs to
nake thcrll :rscoher_entas possiblr \t.1tr|]!I \\irlt p.tri.llum\, 1 r.LL-rr
is morrlir prope r.
()l lncrrrll\ trnlrroper. orre thcn searches 1or
prirrciples that are coltsistenL\ritli thcse
p.1rri(trstns.\\'idell accr:pted principies ol righr acrion and
corsiderecijurlellents ar(l
tltkeu. as Rl ls puts it. ,'prolisionall! as fixed poirrrs.'but also as.,liellle
t(] rensloD..,
Lan\tdercdlutlgrnentiis a technical tcrnr relirring to .judgmenas
in nhich orrr
lroral c:rpacirics:u.e most likcl,, ro be displ:rveclr,ith,rut,list,riti,rrr_.,Jtxamples
are
JLrcl3llrettts al]out the lr:rongnessof racial rliscrinrinerion.religioLrsintolerince.
and
polirical conllict of into.esr_Bv conttisr. judgmenrs itr tthich
ine.s conjiclencc iertl
is lorr or irr l,hich one is inflrrencerlbr the p;ssibilin. ol,personal
gain are erchrdetl.
The goal is Lomarch and consiclcrecijuclgruenrs and principles rn .1uerLcmpr
?rrne
t() nlake them coltercnt,lrl
In conclLlsion,ne catr rccall the prclioLls cliscLlssions irr the lir.srprrt ol.tltis
.hapLel on relati'ism a.d iloral disagr-ee'renL.Often',.hen
.iscussiirs clifilc.lt
cases,nlanv points ofvie$ are bortnccd ar.rrnd Lhc classroonl.
and rhe carntr()\.cf_
sles n:1\' seert intrackblc and not sulject to a pelsuasive
firrm of anah.sistran-
scending persolral opini<tn. Far.fi-our rier,-.ingtheir
class
learning. studenLsntav perceive the classas a lincl of ".,rr,.,r.i,o,rrrr.rrr-,rt
bulletin boarcl upon rlhicli
scoresoi opinioDs rlre r:rcked.It *ourd be a rnistake.ho.!re\.e1.,
to concLudcth:tt slrclr
critical cliscllssioneventuare\ or.rh.in opinion ancl rlonoiogue.
Ilanr app:rreltt
n()ral diienn)as do turn l.rutt{t be piltialiv rcsolrabic in
the colrtext o] such ciiscrrs
\iol. rlDd often a conscnsusposition crnergcstlrr-ough
clialogue.er.cnif rro onc en_
ltcl| agreeson fhe rheoredcal re:rsonsfbL.clelinding the
aonsensrrs poslttLrn.
(.aseslhould alrr'arsbe erarlrincd
in ternrs of alrernadve s[:rresics an(l ac_
tirrrrs._lrrraliabh. manl aitero:lti\'e!1\,illbe p.oposed. but.just as iu:rriablv
thel.\\,ill
not eJl be equalh good. Eren if intractable disagreerient
occur.s.lcarning hor to
spartploblems an.l help elleriareor cleflecrthem lna1 tur.
out ro be a: imp'rnrr rs
ttre substanti\'eissuesthemseh:es.

NOTES
I 1 , , | l J \ l l h r t . I I r , . _\ \ , t , - r e p e , . r , r e . , . . { . h i n f r | | , 1 . .
'12 | tl| \1r.t t..a/,Or t. Iv|etr B, Re\.rd_
l. r . " I l t , l g c r h.
Robert Lindser'. '-.\ncienr Redri,ood Trces Fe ro a \\ill
Srreet Taki)r,ef,,, -\a1, j.irL
nr?e\ (Ilarch 2. 1988),pp. _\16-17.
3. I n s r r n n c e i l l f o r m a t i o I I n s r i r u r c , l s b e s r r , \L r : r L r L n ,
L - \ e \ \\ , ) r L , l & r . t - j , : 0 r ) . j ,
\'\'..,.i.,: n - , , i r h , , r , , p r , . . , , . . ,, . , . t . . , r u .
Iaken tuol1rP--rer Huber.. ,The press (;.rs (JlI Easr ilt Tort
Lar.. l]t ! Strtetlorunal
(fuiv 11. 19851,editor.iaLpage.
 I t r t . . , iI l ' r ' .','l Il ,.i'. .. I', i,' .1J
"

''Prirtcjple
Sale. I|atl sh.,.tJaurnul()lal:!, 19851.P.:j.:r.
'
t). ''Rr:rrring rothe Ilevi table. Dries tAugLtsrl:. I93:r. P 6{j
7 Thorras Hobbcs, l4irlllar. Paft I. aiheP.l:J, P:Lr.-q.
E. lhis thcsisis af$red (\\.lrhorrrrefercrlcclo pirilrsr:rphir:el theolics ,rf cgoisnl) ir!
\\olfga.g Sauer: Also .r (loDcrete Selflnrefe\t,' I'rrilr/ -\alirnI Cirrnrrr' rlsrLicon
'Gl.,hrl SrlsrainableDeveloprrrcnL: The Coryorere ResPolsbilit! 1. Online E.1F
rion 1:01)tl:lfl\r!.r.Lrr.org pubs ch|orricle 20t)2 issrte3
For en acr Lllililafiin e\xmple in businesserhics, R \1. Hare. Corrunerrtlr ,:ru
"cc
BearLchrnrp s llanipulaLi|e .{rtvertising, Bu l^.\ totli laat'si.nnl Lth..\ Jaunlal 3
'
( I 98+): :3 28; for a l Lrleulilinfian e\amplc, se-'Robcft -llnleder. ln llelense of
Shrks: Uonl IssLres in Ilostilc LiquiclatrrrgTak-'oreI\, Jootul Dl B \i"^' I:thi.\'
lr) 119!l1l: -1ii--+t.1.
iom L. Beattchamp. e(1.,(:^t \tudlt: ut B/rrinr..u,.51,r;./r.and Cllr,.r. 5th ed (LPPcr
Sr.ldlc Rr\cr, NJ: llcntice Hell.:i)0-l), Chap.3.
1 1 (l\N.cc,nl (Scpt.3, l!l9g), Online Shoppc|sBid \Iillions loIHunan Kidner.'
Il. \l:r.lhn\,Go\al. ct rl., E.onomic an.l Ileahh Consequcncesol Sellinga Kichterttt
Inl,i},.' lrntnnl tf rhe,\ntntcan )fuditttl .\ssattulirr. 23S iOctobcr :1,:200!l):15E(,t-!lll
I :1. trirr\ Schlirllgcnstcjrl. \\b|kers ohlp h to Help SouthNcsl Emplor-'es Ofler Free
L,:\hor."TbStnttbTit 6 (Scpr.:6.2(l0ir, p. E1.
'
l.l. Scr Jennifef Hull. t'nocal SuesBirnk. \lltll \h!d Jaut)inl\\l.trch 13. 19851.p.2'J:
l:tnclChefles Uc(lov, \Iesa Petr,:,lerrmAlleees Llrocal (,oerre(l B:Lnks. ll;rll tlr4l
/r?rrnl7/i\Iarch !!, 19fi5),p. 6.
I:r. Seel)aridS.tlilzenrath."TirkiDg-\matlnsiderBankDeals.'I1;riin.qldlrii (Scp-
rembcr 30, lll9l l, \\eshingron BrNiness scc.,p. 1.
1rl. Rlhil KiDg. Insider' Loans: Evenone \\ar Donlg It. llusiness :.0: r$r*.
busines'!.com afticles,mag (lrsposred.JanuarrLi. 20011).
t ; . For r len.lInafk agreemeDron ihe Islandof Saiparl(r classncrioDserrlenerll. 5ee
Th. L)grLIItttrlhun.t:t. 2:7, no. 61 { Sept. 30, :0(): ). Nalionel \er{s Se.rion. p. 1.
1 8 Ronaid Dri'rrrknr argues that pol;1?rdlmoralin is r'lghrs-basedur n*nt,r Ritht: Stt)
,l/.rh lLondoD: Drrr:k1\orrh.197;i, p. l7l..John trIackieha5 aPpliedthi\ the{is to
nt)nLn lrn%ill\ ri (,an Thefe Be r Right Besecltrlo.al Thcor':' .\t),li|'PttSiudi.t Dt
Philuwlb, 3 (l-':17!ili csp. p. 35r).See furrhe|Judith.falris Thomsor. nr ,Rrdr, n/
nr,q&/\ ((]llmbridgc, \1.\r Hir\rf.l Universin Pfeis. 1t]30),pp. 1:2ff.
'\\'Lr
See tiu tller -\lal Gel'irfi, Righs ere IndirPe nsibl.', -liind, 115119361::133;
llnd Cerrr th's larer bo.)k.1h! Connnunit,t / Rigrtu(Chicago:L nirersitl of Chicago
Press.1996t.
:f.) Scc Darid Brerbrookc. The Fi1-mbrr Untillr Clor.r.el;rti\i$of Righ$ and Obljga-
rrrs. f:urrtrltuuJournal al PlLilovlh | (l9,!I::151-611;CarIP\\elhttilrr.Rral-R;grlr
t\err!?rrk: Oxford Lni\ersiti Press,I995).
2 1 . Se--rhe rreatmenrol rhesedistin.dons in EIic \hck. ed., ht:itite and \iSrttire Du
/i.J (\er Orle;rns:T[laDe l- niler5i6 Press.]9E5)
Carol Gilligan. In a DiJeftnt lbrrr iCambridgc, \Ld: Harvard Lriveritv Prcss.
1!r32J.
? J , {nnette Baief, ,)k rll Pt"j1t.li.esiCanbridgc, }L\: lllrr\ard Urli\efsiF Press, 199'11.
chi.pref li .\nd Pattur.\ aJ th. llnul (Nli rcapolis: L'di\ersitl of \linncsola Press,
1 9 8 5) , p p . 2 1 { ) - 2 1 9 .
\hholrgh rherc is onh i sirlle. rlni\ersirlcommon nrorililt. thcrc is mo.e lhan
one iiralt offie common morelil. The conlrnon morriil\ rs uni\c$lrlltshare.l: ir
is not a trrrn of $hat is unilersalLlshared.Iof e\anrPlesol dilcrse dreoriesof the
conmon noralin: see Alan Don:lqan, TlLt l'hcan t)l araliry (Cihicego: Universin
ol Chrcago Press,I9i7) i BerDard Gert. Charles \{. CrLlver,and K. Danlro Clouser.
Erhicrl Theon anrl BltsinessPr:lcticc

B)adh !: .\ tututn tr L11"darL.nld1! lNe\f\(rk: a)ford U'ri\'ersiF Pr-'ss,1!l9itranr:l

'nre
\\i. D Ross. I otlmlation\ rJ Lth).r (O\iord Oxf-r)rd tllli\ crsin Pfess. l9:191.
?5. See SisselaP'ok. (bnnon iiJllrzsiColunrbiir, \lO: Lni\ersit\ of \Iissouri Press.
l9!15,.pp. 13-:3, 50 59. SLe citesa boctrofirflucntial l'r'iterson the subject.
26. a,oinpa,c thc irrguments ill G. J. \\'alll,ick, The Ortrt af \tr'.rlif llon.lorl:
\lethuen & (o.. l97ll. csp. pp. 15 :11:-Tohn \la.kie. Ltht..':lnl'.nting llght anl
llron! llondon: Penguin. l9;7r, pp. 1o;ff.
:t. See Henn Richa.dson. "Specifling Norils as a \\iar ro Resolve Grncrete Erhir:al
Ploblems. Plllosol&1anAPubh.,VJtrn\1.e il99rlr,pp.27.J-:110rRichaf.lson.Spe.-
il-!ing. Balancing, ar)d Interpretinq Bioethicel ldnciples. f&rnul 0f ))[adl.ltu 4nd
Phtlasoft^ 23 (9000). 23:-30;.
28 Chrislopher Columbus l-ansclell's flrsl cesebook an Contftrcts is treatecl in
f.a$'rence NL Friednan, .\ Hl\tar", aJ.\nni..an laa (\err \c-rrk: Sirnoi arrd Schuster
1973),pp. 531t The geneml accolrntof the casemerhod irr this sectjon is indebt-
ed t{r this source, and also ro G. Edward \flrtte. TaiLLat r Anoi.u: .\n Lntllt.tuat
Hj9t4 lNerv\brk: O li)rl:t LriversiF Press.198{)1.
29. See tr{. P \lc\air ed.. The Cusetrltthatl dt Iltr Hai\lt.| l:iusit.\\ S.honl l\ew \irrk:
\fcGrar.Hill, 195.1j.
'foulmi
:ll). See-{berr.Jorlscll lurd Stepher n. Ahu$ aJCtry!tstry(P'clkclcv: L'ri\ cr !it\ of
Calitlrrnia Press,I933r. pp. 11-19, 6F6;, :51-251.296 :99;John -\rxs. lrin.i-
pLesanct Pafticrrl it\!" Indiana Lalr JournaL69(199+).
:11. John Rauls. A Theon al JusticeiCambdd-qe, \A: Hanard Lniversin Pres\. 1971 r.
pp. 201f..16-48I199-qeclition,pp. I5-l9,.10-.16l.