Week 1

Lecture notes

 

Critical business ethics

Argument = claim + evidence

Thought as problematization

There is a question as to how much agency we have in this world

"It's just common sense that you Google things."

When we challenge common sense, we do it by problematizing thinking

Religion as a metaphor for cybernetics

Data does not have any inherent ethical meaning

We can think about ethics in two different ways:

1. Good vs evil (ideal assessment of concrete life)

2. Post-structuralism/psychoanalysis (free association)

It's difficult to not assess how you are living in the context of good vs evil

 

For Business Ethics - Chapter 1 - Intro: Against Business Ethics

 

Ethics is a question of the meaning of ‘the good life’

questions about what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’

Business ethics and the world that produces it are in a miserable state

Discomfort due to considering different understandings of what is good and bad

Business ethics seems compromised to its very core, and seems to resist the very thing that it advances

current business ethics call for a narrow/restricted version of business and ethics; this book argues for a broadened/expanded business ethics

How can managers make a decision?

Take into account 'the good life' and the good of the company

Take responsibility for things that are dramatically outside of one's control

Moral distance - we see a problem, but ignore it

Development of technologies that allow people to kill people far away from them

i.e. we read an article about people being killed, but keep scrolling

Too far away from the context in which I need to make a decision (judgment)

i.e. setting up a factory in a 3rd world country

Self-legislation - we govern ourselves

6 problems with current business ethics

Each of problem relates to a foreclosure, or something has been closed down before it should have been (before it even begins its operation)

 

1. Foreclosing philosophy

a. twentieth century philosophy is almost completely excluded

b. our expanded conception of business ethics will be based on:

i. a broadened reading of traditional ethical theory

ii. a broadened canon of ethical theory

 

2. Foreclosing society

a. Individualism is a problem

i. i.e. corporate scandal attributed to evil character of an individual, hiding from view the context in which the acts of misconduct took place

ii. Individual action always takes place in relation to social structures, like organizations or economies

iii. people are often encouraged to behave in ways that other might later decide are immoral

b. There is no formula for individually judging good/evil

 

3. Foreclosing 'the ethical'

a. Typically very narrow definition of what counts as ‘the ethical'

i. certain things designated as ‘ethical’ issues (i.e. bribery, pollution and child labor) other things are treated, implicitly or explicitly, as though they do not involved ethical questions

ii. many of the day to day practices of contemporary organized life are treated as if they do not present ethical concerns

b. it does not exhaust the range of matters that concern

people about the role of businesses in the contemporary world

c. When I say "this is ________" we are also establishing what "this" is NOT

d. Pre-established field of "business ethics"

 

4. Foreclosing the meaning of 'ethics'

a. business ethics means quite a lot of quite different things

b. different ways of talking about ethics discuss different things, different ways of imagining ethics itself

c. strip ethics back to its most basic element, which is something about a relationship with other people and with difference more generally (we must go beyond 'good/evil' to understand ethics)

d. Try to deal with the relationship between thought and its outside - thought is fundamentally related to what is other than thought

e. How do I think something that is other than thought? Every time I have a genuine ethical encounter, I must change the way I think

 

5. Foreclosing politics

a. Not just electoral politics

b. Traditional 5 branches of moral philosophy (all these questions used to be answered by religion)

i. Metaphysics - literally 'after physics' - science of being; the way in which what appears to us as reality is structured - being or not-being

ii. Epistemology - science of the framework of knowledge - known or unknown (and level of certainty)

iii. Logic - coherent or incoherent (how can I move from contradiction to non-contradiction?) a = !a

iv. Aesthetics - beautiful vs ugly (how I feel by a thing; how am I affected by a thing?) - when people say "it's just my opinion," they are using aesthetics

v. Ethics - good vs evil

c. Carl Schmitt - politics - friend or enemy sovereign decision about what is a friend and what is an enemy

i. CEOs can act as sovereign - fire people

ii. Companies/firms can extend beyond the capacity of the geopolitical boundaries

iii. The market has a power that goes well beyond the traditional politic limits

d. business ethics tends to deny the role of politics

e. what business ethics is willing to question and challenge

f. rarely does business ethics imagine the possibility that the sea may be destroyed or that we might not be able to breathe the air

g. widespread recognition that all is not well in the world, but there seems little will to do anything about this

h. we need to reconsider the place of politics in business ethics

 

6. Foreclosing the goal of ethics

a. business ethics is often caught between two conceptions of what it is for:

i. reassuring and satisfying set of ideas that reminds us how to do the right thing (apologetic); or

ii. something that threatens us by exposing us to difference, and that challenges us to think and act differently

b. business ethics often acts as a 'technology' for the reduction of undecidability, like if we know the right rules, we'll do the right thing

c. we should view ethics not as a matter of stable solutions, but as one of endless openness and difficulty; ethics is better thought of as a set of problems

d. Goal of ethics is something like freedom - we can do something else - freedom is not a presupposition of ethics; it is also a goal

 

Metacritique of business ethics

Critique of something begins with what the object is supposed to be

o What objects are according to concepts

if I have no intelligible experience of the world, I'm not living in a 'normal' way

"I know what this is, but it's not doing what it's supposed to"

Metacritique of something - what are these things? What else could this thing be? What other concepts are possible?

o Not a question of how or what way an object lives up to its purpose

o Must rethink the entire concept of the object

o There is nothing structuring the transition from the negative moment (this isn't doing what it's supposed to) to the positive moment (this thing could be something else)

o The capacity to experiment with the things that have fallen apart in front of us

 

Business ethics always seems to begin when there has been a problem/rupture

We are beginning with a 'broken' business ethics

Freedom from the conceptual frame of objects - freedom from the common denominator, ask "what else could it be?"

Conceptualization is always sort of a negative process - we have to do some work of subtraction to get to the common denominator of an object

Week 2

Lecture notes

Subject that judges, and world to be judged

Good/evil - ethics as a secular version of religion

Religion believes there is truth in the supernatural realm

Secularization - initially monotheism

If you have more than one idea of good vs evil, you can't judge

We have no common religious authority we can use to judge good/evil

Carl Schmitt (Nazi) - politics = friend or enemy

Polemics, Politics, and Problematizations - Michel Foucault

Theme in Foucault's work is the relationship between power and knowledge

How power is used to control and define knowledge

What authorities claim as 'scientific knowledge' are just means of social control

How does his sexuality play into his politics? (He was gay)

Systems of thought

Polemic - the art or practice of engaging in controversial debate or dispute; a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something

 

Nihilistic - total rejection of established laws and institutions

 

Foucault does not engage in polemics

He believes in reciprocal elucidation - rights of the "questioner" and "answerer" are assigned

o People engaged in debate are partners in search for the truth

o People have the right to speak

o Objective is to come as close as possible to truth

 

Polemicists believe they have privileges in advance which they will never question

o People engaged in debate are enemies who are wrong, harmful, and whose very existence constitutes a threat

o Opponents should be abolished from any dialogue

o Objective is to win for their 'just cause'

o His/her adversary is by definition denied

 

"A parasitic figure on discussion and an obstacle to the search for the truth"

3 models: religious model, judiciary model, political model

interlocutors are incited not to advance, but to fall back continually on the rights that they claim

"It's true that I prefer not to identify myself, and that I'm amused by the diversity of the ways I've been judged and classified."

Foucault approaches political questions by "problematization" - the development of a domain of acts, practices, and thoughts that seem to him to pose problems for politics

Mental illness, crime/punishment, sexuality

He questions politics about the positions it takes and the reasons it gives

He does not ask politics to determine the theory of what he does

Foucault tries to analyze relations among science, politics, and ethics

How these processes interfered with each other in the formation of a scientific domain, a political structure, a moral practice For example:

 

Psychiatry as we know it couldn't have existed without a whole interplay of political structures and without a set of ethical attitudes; but inversely, the establishment of madness as a domain of knowledge [savoir] changed the political practices and the ethical attitudes that concerned it. It was a matter of determining the role of politics and ethics in the establishment of madness as a particular domain of scientific knowledge [connaissance], and also of analyzing the effects of the latter on political and ethical practices

 

three fundamental elements of any experience: a game of truth, relations of power, and forms of relation to oneself and to others

 

History of problematics

Attempting to describe the history of thought as distinct both from the history of ideas (the analysis of systems of representation) and the history of mentalities (the analysis of attitudes and types of action)

Describe the history of thought using the element of problems or 'problematizations'

Thought is what allows one to step back from a way of acting or reacting, to present it to oneself as an object of thought and to question it (meaning, conditions, goals)

We are free to examine systems of thought by problematizations

Who are we in relation to problems?

We all begin (as babies) with the capacity for infinite problematization

 

For Business Ethics - Chapter 2 - Common sense business ethics

 

What is business?

A subject (person) engaged in a particular trade or activity (vocation)

o Vocation is that which evokes your most powerful aspects - what it is that you are called to do

o Term came originally from religion

A sphere organized by the relations among commodities and producers

o Not just a personal category; no one person defines this sphere

o Refers to a whole aspect, region, space within society

Typically refers to jobs and organizations in the private sector

Profit-making, enterprising, respond to the market

 

World of 'work' is divided into two parts:

1. Business sector - brutal, but realistic; high rewards, but relies on hard work and job insecurity

Impersonal category

2. Not business - schools, hospitals, families, friends; viewed as kinder/slower as it's sheltered from 'market conditions'

Private, leisurely, "free" activity

 

The ethics which would apply to non-business organizations are not useful for the world of business, which is why there is a special kind of ethics which apply to business (this idea runs counter to typical ethics: consistency of moral judgment across different situations would usually be ethical)

 

Business is instrumental: end is external to the means

Business is never good only for business

In the world of business, most people have a hard time saying why they do what they do in the business sphere

Business ethicists generally say that businesses operate outside of morality

What makes me good at business is that I don't care about ethics

Marketplace vs market

Marketplace (Greek: agora) - literally the site of social and political synthesis - everyone was in contact with everyone - business coincided with social

Market - non-subjective/impersonal, intentional context of exchange - disembodied - no physical structure where business happens - we don't trust individuals to run markets

Sovereignty vs government - electoral process, bureaucracy, administration

We do not have a self-appointed or divine authority

The people who preside over the polis are elected (voting) - no individual makes this decision - prevent interpersonal relationships from deciding how we structure our polis (i.e. monopoly)

Impersonal

Economy - the whole of all markets - the name for the totality of the specific market spheres

Greek: oikos - household

Business has been seen in most cultures as dirty or vulgar

Imagery in movies/tv/stories vs. imagery in marketing/business textbooks

Most classes treat business at least as though it is unproblematic

o Two main sciences governing science of business: psychology and economics

o When 'rules' or 'laws' of business are discussed, they are not the same as rules or laws of physics or biology; more like opinions or prejudice

When we are presented with purported 'facts', they involve ideas about how things 'should' be

Industrial psychology - behavioral psychology and economics - knowledge/discursive operations

How can I ensure individuals are productive?

Individual perspectives relationship to larger impersonal processes

Answer these questions by collecting information/data

What I don't know can always be understood as a lack of information/data

Foucault says that we cannot understand business without the context of:

1. Game of truth

2. Relations of power

3. Ethics

Raising the issue is not the same thing as condemning

We never have a standpoint that is extrinsic to the thing itself

What is ethics?

1. Judgments of right and wrong

2. "The self's encounter with itself"

Questions of your ethos (Greek: meaning character) - you are on your own - this is what regulates us

Right vs wrong, good vs bad

If we did not have the capacity to do evil, there would not be any freedom in doing good

Many philosophers have stressed the unruly, lawless nature of morality

Moral assumptions are significantly shaped by social contexts

What is business ethics?

"business" over here "ethics" over there - two separate entities - how do "business" and "ethics" have an internal relationship

Business ethicists claim businesses do not have the resources to deal with moral matters on their own

Core assumption is people in business are 'morally insufficient'

It is suggested there is a crisis of ethics

o People are not as 'good' now as they once were

o Ethical decline

o Progress = loss of community

o Small-scale, face-to-face interactions replaced by anonymous corporate structures

o Heightened public awareness and legislation

This history is used to legitimize:

o Business ethics (analysis, education, regulation)

o Business and management education/schools

Business ethics, practically applied, involve:

1. Moral philosophy

a. Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Mill, Bentham

b. Utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics

2. Stressing the application and relevance of business ethics - the bridge between the intellectual and practical worlds

The 'common sense' of global capitalism and market managerialism typically ends up 'outside' of business ethics

Will business ethics make businesses more ethical?

Business ethicists do not raise expectations too high

Goals rarely ambitious

o Typically do not involve radical social change

o Gentle, polite reform

o Education for top decision makers

o Not too distressing

Ethics becomes part of a marketing strategy - to increase profits

What is common sense?

Thomas Reid - Scottish common sense philosopher (1700s)

Opposite of idealism (all human understanding is entrapped in a world of ideas and impressions)

The world is as it is and there is no use raising doubts against this (i.e. a really existing subject ["me"] sees a really existing object ["this chair"])

Although it may be true that we can't prove the subject/object exists, we know they exist; they are 'ultimate facts' that are not in need of proof, but rather make up the foundation of all proof                                       

Immanuel Kant - German philosopher (late 1700s)

Common sense is a subjective principle based on feeling rather than objective knowledge

Reason based on common sense is unsophisticated, vulgar, undisciplined form of thought

Gilles Deleuze - French philosopher (1960s)

Philosophy itself is not safe from common sense, such as:

o By nature, all human beings strive for knowledge

o Common sense is what we all share

o Thought is by nature good as it is always directed toward the truth

o The truth of a problem can only be found if we solve it

o Error is alien to thought in the sense that it must have been caused by something outside it

Constantly wonders whether stupidity or error are not essential aspects of thought as opposed to its denial

What is philosophy?

Philosophers tend to agree on very little

An attitude of naïve disbelief is required to question things held as common sense

Matters of fact vs matters of value ('is' statements vs 'ought' statements)

Matters of fact - concerned with objects or events

o Ideas about what sorts of things exist (ontology)

o What sort of techniques we can use to understand these things (epistemology)

Matters of value - morality, politics, beauty, attitudes

o Aesthetics - beauty vs ugly

o Ethics - good vs bad

Our values inform how we collect facts and the facts we deem important affect our values; therefore, facts are made

Descriptive ethics - describes the strategies people use to reach ethical decisions (i.e. sociologist or anthropologist collects 'facts' about moral talk and behavior)

Prescriptive ethics - suggest what people should do (i.e. formulate some kind of law, rule, or code to guide action)

There are typically not clear lines between description/prescription

Week 3

Freedom of individual and freedom of society are different

Utility - greatest good of the greatest number - most happiness of the greatest number - greatest pleasure to the most people

Rational self-interest = happiness

I have the option to arrange my life to make choices that will make me happy (as long as it doesn't harm others)

Freedom is the ability to arrange my pains/pleasures how I please

Consequentialist ethical theory

Concerned with the effect of an intention

Not with the idea in my head of what I'm about to do (intention) - something that doesn't exist yet, but will

There is nothing more angelic than the idea of a good intention

Field of human intentions that is separate from the world of consequences

o The intention has to mix with other stuff

o It's not only human intentions that are issue

Subject (intention) vs object (consequence) - we beginning asking questions in a state of 'unfreedom'

People are governed by two sovereign masters: pain and pleasure; this is how the world affects us

Freedom/spontaneity - self-determination - if it is free, it is determined by itself (not coerced)

Power - investment of energy - is what I'm doing increasing power/energy? Am I giving my power to someone else, or am I devoting it to myself?

God is dead" - Nietzsche - god was the highest, freest being; not anymore 18th century

Pain/pleasure = affects - some other forces, something not limited to the sphere of our self

Insight vs faith

Insight

o Absolute truth: effect inquiry into the world

o Something that I am able to determine to comprehend the truth of it

o Do stuff to please me

Faith (Bentham wants nothing to be determined by faith)

o Absolute truth: effect of an affective experience

o Something that I cannot understand - constant limitation to what it is I can know

o Do stuff to please god

o Vantage point on the world that comes from somewhere external

John Stuart Mill

Trying to reflect on what is the consequence of utilitarianism for human happiness

What is the utility of utility? What is the good of good?

Views Act Utilitarianism as overly technical

o Means (utilitarianism) to an end (greatest happiness for greatest number)

o If all we are concerned with is the greatest happiness for the greatest number, doesn't that make us all the same? (every person's happiness = 1)

o Some may have more useful desires than others; what kinds of pleasure you pursue matter

o Millions of people are doing manual, boring, non-intellectual jobs

People's desires seem to disintegrate

Higher pleasure vs lower pleasure

Qualitative differences in pleasure

This is the difference between Mill and Bentham

Each of us knows how to maximize utility

Each of us also know how to evaluate quality of pleasure, but you have to have experienced both, otherwise you cannot determine what will count as more socially useful

Question of education

It should be up to me what pleasure to pursue

Do we have the liberty to pursue these pleasures?

The problem utilitarianism is trying to solve is that we have different definitions of 'happiness' - how much happiness are we producing?

Mind: universal form of human being that relates to the world in terms of form/law

Body: sphere of private particular sense experiences and impulses - how you related to this world right now

Pure reason: reason with body removed

Mill: who cares about reason if you can't live it? Take what you think and do it

Conduct: the way we think freely, the way we actively apply our impulses

We are not only oppressed by government, but also fashion, etc.

Separate ourselves from lower pleasures

People who are weak are predisposed to imitate people who are strong

Are people predisposed to conform? 

On Liberty: Chapter 3 - Of Individuality, as one of the Elements of Well-being - John Stuart Mill

If we believe humans should be able to form and express opinions freely, must we also believe that humans should be free to do whatever they want as long as it is at their own risk and danger?

Not implying that actions should be as free as opinions

Even opinions lose their immunity when they are expressed in a circumstance which instigates some mischievous act

Liberty of the individual is limited: must not be a nuisance to others

Acts that harm others without justifiable cause are controlled by bad feelings and/or interference of other people

The same reasons which show opinion should be free also prove that people should be free to carry their opinions into practice at their own cost

Mankind are not infallible; their truths, for the most part, are only half-truths

Unity of opinion, unless resulting from the fullest and freest comparison of opposite opinions, is not desirable; diversity is good

While humans are imperfect, there should be different opinions and different 'experiments of living'

Worth of different 'modes' of life should be proven practically

Individuality should assert itself in things which do not primarily concern others

When traditions/customs of others are the rule of conduct instead of one's own character, happiness (and therefore individual and social progress) is affected

Biggest challenge: people in general are indifferent to individuality

If people felt the free development of individuality was essential to well-being, there would be no danger of liberty being undervalued

Most are satisfied with the way things are and cannot understand this way isn't good enough for everyone

Individual spontaneity (individuality) is not typically thought of as having any intrinsic worth or as deserving of questioning

Spontaneity viewed by most moral and social reformers "(jealously") as a problem: hurdle for general acceptance of what these reformers believe is best for mankind

Wilhelm von Humboldt

Ideal person has the highest and most harmoniously developed powers to a complete, consistent whole

We should direct our efforts toward individuality of power and development

o Requirements: freedom and variety of situations

o Results in: individual vigor and manifold diversity = originality

Nobody denies that people should be taught things when they are young to benefit by the learned results of human experience; however it is the privilege of a human at the maturity of his faculties to use and interpret experience in his/her own way

Perception, judgment, discriminative feeling, mental activity, and moral preference are exercised only in making a choice

Custom/practice = no choice

Mental/moral are improved by being used (like muscles)

He who lets the world, or his own portion of it, choose his plan of life for him, has no need of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation

Instead, we should use:

observation to see

reasoning and judgment to foresee

activity to gather materials for decision

discrimination to decide

firmness and self-control to hold to our deliberate decision

 

Humankind is the most important thing to perfect and beautify

Human nature is not a machine

It is more like a tree - grows and develops on all sides according to inward forces

It is admitted to a certain extent that our understanding should be our own; however, not the same willingness to admit our desires and impulses should also be our own

Strong impulses only dangerous when not properly balanced

One set of aims developed, while others, which should co-exist, remain weak

People do bad things not because they have strong desires, but because they have weak consciences

Strong impulses are just another name for energy

A person whose desires and impulses are the expression of his own nature (as developed and modified by his own culture) is said to have a character

In addition, if his impulses are also strong and are under the

government of a strong will, he has an energetic character

Society needs strong natures

Historically, in early stages of society, spontaneity and individuality was in excess; therefore it was difficult to induce men of strong bodies/minds to obey rules required to control their impulses

Now, the danger which threatens human nature is not the excess, but the deficiency, of personal impulses and preferences

We live as though we are under the eye of a hostile and dreaded censorship

Instead of "what do I prefer?" we ask "what is suitable to my position?" or (worse) "what is usually done by people of a station and circumstances superior to mine?"

 

Even in what people do for pleasure, conformity is the first thing thought of

Calvinistic theory

The one great offence of man is self-will

All the good of which humanity is capable is comprised in obedience

Whatever is not a duty, is a sin

Complete destruction of human nature

Many religious people believe we are as their Maker designed them to be

If man was made by a good Being, it is more consistent with that faith to believe that Being gave them faculties to explore and unfolded, not rooted out and eliminated

Their Maker would be delighted with each step closer to the ideal conception embodied in his creations (improvements in capabilities of comprehension, action, or enjoyment)

A conception of humanity as having its nature bestowed on it for other purposes than merely to be abnegated

Wtf does this mean? "It may be better to be a John Knox than an Alcibiades, but it is better to be a Pericles than either; nor would a Pericles, if we had one in these days, be without anything good which belonged to John Knox."

Alcibiades was a gifted, good looking, rich, flamboyant Athenian statesman/general

o One of the most colorful leaders in the history of Classical Athens

o Shifting of sides during the Peloponnesian War in the 5th century BCE earned him a reputation for cunning and treachery

o Also notorious for his extravagant lifestyle and loose morals

Pericles was a prominent statesman, famous orator, and general of Athens during the Golden Age of Athens

o Period that he led Athens, it blossomed as a center of education, art, culture, and democracy; has been called the 'Age of Pericles’

o Promoted the arts, literature, and philosophy

o Gave free reign to some of the most inspired writers and thinkers of his time

 

John Knox was a Scottish minister, theologian, and writer who was a leader of the country's Reformation

o Founder of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland

o Student of John Calvin, from whom he gained experience and knowledge of Reformed theology and Presbyterian polity

 

Mill argues for a non-Calvinistic conception of 'ideal' humanity resulting in humans becoming 'noble and beautiful object[s] of contemplation' by cultivating and calling forth individuality

Within the limits imposed by the rights and interests of others

Nourishes high thoughts and elevates feelings

As a person's individuality develops, they become more valuable to himself, and is therefore capable of being more value to others

When there is more life in the units there is more in the mass which is composed of them

 

The means of development humans lose by being prevented from encroaching on the rights of others are obtained at the expense of the development of other people

 

There are opportunities for better development in the social part of human nature

Made possible by the restraint on the selfish part

Through the development of feelings and capacities which have the good of others for their object

Ages have been noteworthy to future generations when, during that age, different people were allowed to lead different lives

Individuality is individual development, and only the cultivation of individuality produces a well-developed human (the 'best thing they can be')

Must show 'developed' humans are of some use to the 'undeveloped' so the 'undeveloped' are 'rewarded' for allowing others to express individuality freely

Discover new truths; begin new practices

Unless one believes the world has reached perfection in all its practices, these are necessary

If there were nothing new to be done, would human intellect cease to be necessary?

Tendency of beliefs/practices to degenerate into mechanical

Geniuses are a small minority; we must preserve the soil in which they grow (atmosphere of freedom)

o More individual than other people

o Less capable of fitting into societal molds

o Mills believes people are mostly indifferent to the importance of genius

o Genius = originality in thought and action

"Whatever homage may be professed, or even paid, to real or supposed mental superiority, the general tendency of things throughout the world is to render mediocrity the ascendant power among mankind."

Today, individuals are lost in the crowd

In politics: public opinion now rules the world

Only 'power' is that of the masses ('collective mediocrity')

Both moral and social norms of private life and public sphere

Thinking is done for the masses by humans like themselves via media (Mill says 'newspapers')

Isn't arguing that there is a better way with the current 'low state' of the human mind

No government has ever or could ever rise above mediocrity unless the Many allow themselves to be guided by the influence of a gifted/instructed One or Few

Honor of the average man is that he can respond internally to wise and noble things, and be led to them willingly

When the opinions of masses of mediocre humans become the dominant power, the counterbalance is encouraging pronounced individuality of those who stand on the higher eminences of thought

Historically, there was no advantage unless they acted not only differently, but better

Now the mere refusal to bend the knee to custom is itself a service

It is important to give the freest scope possible to uncustomary things so, in time, we can determine which should be converted into customs

There is no reason that all human existence should be constructed on some small number of patterns

A person's own mode of laying out his existence is the best because it is his own mode

 

Different people require different conditions for their spiritual development

Something that helps one person hinders another

Differences in sources of pleasure, pain tolerance, and the operation on them of different physical and moral agencies

"…the man, and still more the woman, who can be accused either of doing “What nobody does,” or of not doing “what everybody does,” is the subject of as much depreciatory remark as if he or she had committed some grave moral delinquency."

People have to have a title or social rank to be able to do somewhat as they please without judgement

Characteristic of the current direction of public opinion calculated to make it intolerant of individuality:

Most humans have no tastes/wishes strong enough to make them want to do anything unusual

They do not understand those who do have such tastes/wishes

They class these people with the 'wild and intemperate' who they typically look down upon

Strong movement towards improving morals and prudence

Increased regularity of conduct and discouragement of excesses

These tendencies cause the public to be more willing to prescribe general rules of conduct, and work to get everyone to comply

o Today, that rule is to desire nothing strongly

o Ideal character is to be without any marked character

There is now scarcely any outlet for energy in this country except business

Customs are an obstacle to human advancement; the contest between progressive principles and customs is a chief interest in the history of human kind

Liberty is the only constant, permanent source of improvement; within it, there are as many possible independent centers of improvement as there are individuals

A people may be progressive, but stop when it ceases to possess individuality

 

Custom today discourages singularity, but it does not prevent change, provided all change together

If there is a change, it shall be for change’s sake, and not from any idea of beauty or convenience

It is not progress we object to, but individuality ("forgetting that the unlikeness of one person to another is generally the first thing which draws the attention of either to the imperfection of his own type, and the superiority of another")

 

China: talent/wisdom due to early period with good set of customs

Impress best wisdom upon every mind in the community

Those who appropriated most of the wisdom occupy posts of honor and power

One would think these people discovered the secret of human progressiveness; however, China was stationary for 1000s of years; Mill said foreigners were the only people who could further improve them

Succeeded beyond all hope in what English philanthropists are so industriously working at - in making a people all alike, all governing their thoughts and conduct by the same maxims and rules

 

Europe is indebted to its plurality of paths (individuals, classes, nations, have been extremely unlike one another) for its progressive and many-sided development

However, now moving towards the Chinese ideal of making all people alike

Wilhelm von Humbolt: 2 necessary things for human development - freedom and variety of situations - variety of situations is diminishing

 

Comparatively speaking, people now read the same things, listen to the same things, see the same things, go to the same places, have their hopes and fears directed to the same objects, have the same right and liberties, and the same means of asserting them

Education brings people under common influences and provides a general stock of facts and sentiments

Improvement in the means of communication

Increase of commerce and manufacturing

Biggest factor: domination of public opinion in the State

 

Mankind will quickly become unable to conceive diversity if they don't see it for some time

 

For Business Ethics - Chapter 3 - 'Business ethics' I: consequences

 

A defining controversy of the last two centuries of moral philosophy is whether we are good because of:

1. What we intend to do (next chapter)

2. What happened as a consequence of what we did? (this chapter) - majority of arguments in business ethics are about consequences

 

Everyone sometimes believes ethics is about consequences: ‘I did it because I thought that X would happen.’

 

Utilitarianism, a version of consequentialism is the moral philosophy of capitalism - actions are good when they have utility (increase the total sum of happiness in society)

 

Is happiness all that counts?

 

Should everyone be happy in and with this world?

 

Utilitarianism is an ethics which aims for maximum 'utility'; or happiness should be spread around as much as possible (acknowledges that happiness cannot be equally spread)

Central form of thinking for any large-scale form of administration

Key feature of 20th century business

Highly rationalistic; both progressive and dangerous

To maximize happiness:

o Calculate the likely consequences of different actions; weigh good vs bad, decide based upon which is greater

o Don't get carried away with ‘metaphor and declamation' (Bentham)

2 forms:

o Rule (Mill)

Begins with the basic problem that not everyone has enough information about all situations to make good choices

Maxims/context-dependent rules are the object of the felicific calculus; do these rules maximize happiness?

Rules to increase 'utility'

i.e. 'don't lie', 'keep promises'

Open-endedness; relaxation of the relationship between the judge and the situation

o Act (Bentham)

'Purer' form of utilitarianism

Judge each situation as it arises

Individual acts/decisions are assessed

Context-dependent intention

NOT rules/laws (maxims) - no specific object/situation

The one who decides is the one who judges what will result in the greatest good - requires expertise

Do not pursue rational self-interest; each situation must be judged

How many more individuals will be happy? Each person counts as exactly 1 unit of happiness

Do we want to completely abandon our right to pursue individual happiness?

 Polis (political community) is modeled on the individual

Have to judge dispassionately - must not think of immediate pains/pleasures, but overall pains/pleasures

No individual pains/pleasure are greater than another

 Francis Hutcheson (early-mid 1700s) - precursor of utilitarianism, along with David Hume

Goal of ethics: "That action is best which procures the greatest happiness for the greatest number."

Taught Adam Smith (wasn't sold on this simple formula)

Suggests that everybody's interests must be taken into consideration

o Laws during this time were being passed to benefit wealthy landowners

o Radical idea - threatened the interests of a few to benefit the many

 

Jeremy Bentham (late 1700s-mid 1800s)

"Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do."

His themes:

o Search for a rational foundation for law and public affairs

o Desire to replace tradition with reason

Believed:

o Reasonable people are interested in facts

o Since people are governed by pain and pleasure, a rational ethics attempts to maximize pleasure and minimize pain

o 'Moral science' to solve public problems may be possible; based on values firmly grounded in facts

By replacing hierarchical tradition with logic

Primarily concerned with consequences, not intentions

o Society ('community') is the sum of individuals who each bring their own 'piece' of happiness (happiness of society can be divided into parts of individual happiness)

Saw utilitarianism as a guide to policy (what to do to maximize public benefit)

o Good governor = someone whose business has good consequences

o Radical ideas because they are concerned with the future as opposed to the past

 

Reduces ethics to a choice between happiness and unhappiness

 

Transparency: ethics should make ethical/legal decisions fairly straightforward; no 'undecidability'

 

Belief in the possibility of a moral optimum regarding business

Must also believe happiness (goal of ethics) is reducible into something quantitative

Quality/intensity of pleasures/pains too complex for decision-makers

Bring pains/pleasures together under a unified language of numbers: Bentham’s ‘felicific calculus’

 

Decision-maker should consider the total sum of happiness (≠ everybody has the right to be happy)

Happiness is a goal, not a right

May opt for actions at the expense of a few while benefitting the most (this is where Adam Smith disagrees: our concern for the individual "should not be sacrificed on the altar of maximum utility")

Good business owner may upset some people in achieving their ends, but this is less important than their actions being justifiable according to the greatest happiness of the greatest number

 

Pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence, but nowhere in the Constitution and therefore has no legal basis

Jurists have repeatedly tried to find a possible legal protection of individual rights in the law - not easy

Utilitarian-minded judges have tried to keep the idea of a right to happiness at bay

Fundamental problem of bringing happiness into law is that my happiness might not be in accord with your happiness - particularly in business

o Bentham created an ‘industry of happiness’ that allows us to reduce ethics to a technical matter

o So many conflicting kinds of happiness in the world of business, the right to pursue individual happiness escapes the rules of industry, law, capitalism

 

John Stuart Mill (mid to late 1800s) - key figure in the development/refinement of utilitarianism

Child prodigy; education partly planned by Bentham

Spent most of his life working for the East India Company, arm of the British Empire that basically governed India

Applied Bentham's principals of social justice to individual action (both more refined and more elitist)

o Modified/humanized some of Bentham's unbending principles

o Pushed Bentham's radicalism in a more conservative direction

Attempted to rank pleasures according to importance (pleasure of pig ≠ pleasure of philosopher)

 

Mill believed Bentham's thought was 'subversive' due to its attack on ancient institutions

 

Though Mill sees the limitations in Bentham's ideas, his suggestion is that government needs to be handled by an elite who have the intelligence and taste to resist the fundamental urges of common people

 

Any given choice should be assessed for its likely consequences for producing pain or pleasure understood in the most general of terms

Prevent mindless rule-following

Ensures each situation is giving attention

Allows us to accept that many times the ends justify the means - important to business managers

 

Can be used to explain why we have to do things other people might think are wrong

Serving a higher good/plan

Important so we can explain how we acted ethically (avoid feeling guilty)

 

Ethics of planning - we think about consequences (which is a rational thing to do)

 

Many philosophers are skeptical (i.e. Marx, Nietzsche)

'Good' reflects a normative prescription, not just a description

Makes assumptions about 'good'; assumes it is clear what the 'good' is

Nietzsche criticized Mill for his 'offensive clarity'

 

Assumptions about the 'good' are problematic

Short-term pleasure vs long-term collective good

My immediate wishes for pleasure are less important in favor of some longer time frame/wider conception

 

Mill: create a hierarchy of needs (a list of preferences) in which (for example) food comes before drugs

Otherwise a happy pig is better than an unhappy Socrates

Ethical decision maker should order my preferences and optimize them

o Assumes we know our preferences and are able to choose between them

Good to go to dentist, stop smoking, eat less

Racism, hunting, etc.

o Definition of 'good' comes from whoever judges

 

Utility = the greatest good, taking into account reasonable personal preferences, based on commonly accepted time horizons, and judge by someone with the maximum degree of impartiality

 

Weighing the good

Problem of comparability and measurability of pleasures and pains

Are 2 happy people are more important than 1 unhappy person?

What if a person is only slightly unhappy and another is very happy?

Pleasure/pain do not come in units

 

What importance do the raw numbers have?

Mill: we may sometimes need to defend 'minorities' against the 'tyranny of the majority'

He believed Bentham's adherence to dominant opinion would lead to social stagnation - no opposition to ruling power

'Fair treatment for all' must be a higher good than 'majority rule'

 

Utility = the greatest good of the greatest number, subject to the projection of the socially accepted rights of legitimate minorities

 

William Petty (1623-1687) - precursor to utilitarianism

Described 'political arithmetic' - the entire world, and entire social world, can be reduced to and expressed in terms of numbers

All human behaviors represent a value which could be expressed in terms of money

 

A world reduced to numbers is a world in which it is difficult to cheat each other

 

How do we get the information on which to base our decisions?

Quality is important

Ideally we need complete knowledge of any giving situation

 

How can we get reliable information concerning what is good for others if they are not really sure themselves?

 

The relationships between individual and collective goods is not that straightforward

 

We need to predict the future: what happens if I do X as opposed to Y

Does the moral meaning of an action lie entirely in its consequences?

We can never decide whether something is good or bad because it's always too early to know

If our guesses are wrong, does that mean we're immoral?

 

This is a more accurate reflection of utilitarianism in practice: utility = the greatest good (taking into account reasonable personal preferences, based on commonly accepted time horizons, and judged by someone with the maximum degree of impartiality) of the greatest number (subject to the protection of the socially accepted rights of legitimate minorities) based on the information available at the current moment, and reasonable assumptions about what is likely to happen in the future.

 

Mill: utilitarianism is the most logical general framework for morality and law; details to be progressively modified by working out 'secondary principles' that stem from the principle of utility

 

Affords advantages to administrators who want/need to justify their decisions

 

Easy to (consciously or not) manipulate the information fed into the equation

 

Irony: Mill and Bentham wanted people to make decisions for themselves rather than trust in God, tradition, or authority, but by the middle of 19th century, 'utilitarian' meant uninterested in culture and emotion, motivated by narrow ideas of progress

 

Fact/value problem: humans should value pleasure, but sometimes they don't - paradox when a few sacrifice themselves for the many

Example: war memorials celebrated as exemplar of moral action

This proves people are not ruled by pain and pleasure and can choose to ignore them

Week 4 & 5 Notes Lauren Chaplinski (lchaplinski) ( Dec 16, 2017 12:14 PM )

Note: I just added to my Week 4 for Week 5.

Lecture notes

 

Grounding the highest good in the intention (Kant) of the action vs grounding the highest good in the consequence (Mill/Bentham) of the action

 

Thought and gesture > gesture involves risk

 

Utilitarianism (Mill/Bentham)

1. We begin with unfreedom: subjection to pain and pleasure

2. Freedom to administer or arrange a set of givens

o The way in which I am responding/reacting to things that are given to me

o Really don't care about individual freedom

 

Freedom/spontaneity of the individual - capacity to self-determine

Power - investment of energy in the source of that energy (as opposed to something else being the object of the investment of energy)

 

Intentionalism (Immanuel Kant - Kantian moral philosophy)

We begin from a position of passivity

Logic is what allows me to understand the 'good'

 

Pure reason - the faculty of human freedom

Reason unencumbered by any object other than the reason itself

Logic is the object of pure reason

o Truth: non-contradiction

o False: contradiction

o a = a -> secularized version of the soul

Pure intention

 

Tension between private use/public use of reason

Private in the sense that it is the way an individual has embedded oneself in the division of labor; refers to doing your individual duty in relation to others - obey the authority of another

Public use of reason - critical dialogue with others (free individuality) - self-determine the authority

Neither of these spheres of reason allow for hedonism (doing whatever you want)

o Think whatever you like, but obey

o Hedonism is a threat to freedom - constantly being led around by your body

 

Freedom through self-legislation

Giving one's duty to oneself

Self-determination of freedom

Freedom from all authority is not freedom, it is anarchy

 

Always either subject to authority (private) or trying to convince others to be subject to a new authority (public)

 

Minority = childhood (being a minor)

We are prematurely born

Incapable of negotiating the world

Someone else negotiates your relationship to the world for you

Autonomously - auto: self, nomos: law

o Natural for us to overcome our dependence upon others

o This is what he means by "self-incurred" - childhood is our own fault

 

Theoretical reason - scientific method

It has to exist, I have to see it

Empirical observation to detect patterns

Sense-experience

Use of reason that is reactive

 

"God is dead" (Nietzsche) there are not real universals

Point of access humans have with the world

Rationalist approach to founding our knowledge of universal categories - the thought I have of god is sufficient to prove he exists

Empiricism - all your thoughts are effects of sensation of the world

 

Kant says the root of all knowledge is not unified

No self-identical ground of human knowledge

All knowledge is grounded in synthesis

Concepts (general) + intuitions (particular) = analysis

Objectively speaking, if I understand the world around me, a process of synthesis has already taken place

Concepts are something I project into the world

 

Constantly trying to correct my idea of the world

Interpreting something that has already taken place

 

Synthesis is the highest good - means is the end, and the end is the mean

 

Purify reason of intuition (pain and pleasure) - stoicism = pure reason - removing intuitions

Refusal of affective content - get ourselves out of the world

What utility does moral reason have without intuition?

Understanding (impure reason - concepts) - reasoning about something other than reason

Sensation (intuition) - recollection of what happened before - pain and pleasure

 

Relationship of pure reason to will/intention - opposed to the body and the world

 

Freedom = freedom from intuition

 

Problem that pure reason is attempting to solve

Intuitions (the body in general) are singular - one cannot experience the world from someone else's perspective

In order to escape my perspective, need to purify myself of my particular point of view (intentions), so left with only concepts

 

Racism/sexism - these are implying that these groups of people are unable to extract themselves from their own bodies (i.e. incapable of dropping intuitions, incapable of pure reason)

 

Hypothetical imperative - (intuitions) - rules (maxims) for the way I satisfy my bodily desires

Happiness, everyday-ness, private use of reason

Happiness = capacity to pursue hypothetical imperatives

These desires mark my individuality (my pursuit of happiness)

Pre-moral / amoral

This is a technical imperative - ends and means are separate from each other

Heteronomous - different law - reason is following an end that comes from outside of it

We will never get the highest good through these maxims (opposite of utilitarianism)

 

Categorical imperative - provides 3 ways of thinking about moving back into the world from the realm of pure reason

Trying to purify sensation of impure reason

Highest end and the highest means

Attempt through the mind to give a secular version of god after the enlightenment kills him with doubt

Pure reason assumes a divine form

Human reason is the law of law

Completely independent of any bodily or moral determination

Act of suicide might be the highest expression of human reason - total rejection of any human influence

Always begin with hypothetical imperative/intuition, but quickly leave it behind

 

Do you ever really leave intuitions behind? Many later philosophers don't believe so

 

Kant was kind of a masochist: he believed every choice with any moral texture is subject to moral analysis

 

3 formulations of the categorical imperative - thought experiment

1. Act in such a way that the maxim of your action could become a universal law

i. Leave all intuitive content aside; left with concepts (stoicism) - we do not assume our intuitions are right

ii. Maxim - object-dependent law (i.e. 10 commandments) = concept + intuition - start from intuition, then identify the concept motivating the intuition/action

iii. We do not know what the moral value of the maxim is, so we test it using this formulation - would it be possible to sustain this maxim in a universal context?

1. If everyone steals, there is no notion of property and there is no stealing; therefore, stealing is immoral - it's not possible for everyone to steal

2. If everyone lies, there is no notion of truth and there is no lie; therefore lying is immoral - it's not possible for everyone to lie at once

2. Treat others not only as a means, but also as an end (how should I relate to others?)

i. Application of 1st formulation to individuals

ii. We are already using each other as means via market/economy - we can identify cheaters, thieves, etc.

iii. Ends are ALWAYS higher than means

iv. Organize my conduct in such a way not just for the sake of my ends, but for the sake of others' ends (respecting others' freedom - which doesn't necessarily = happiness)

v. "Sometimes you have to be forced to be free" - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

vi. Ends: happiness (Kant doesn't care about this) and morality/dignity

1. Feudalism = making people happy (end) by forcing them to accept your view of morality (end we care about)

2. Treating others as a means = using them in a basic economic transaction

vii. Must respect the fact that people are free beings (rational and sovereign) - respect their capacity to go beyond happiness and find pure reason

viii. Recognizing and treating people as capable of moral criticism

ix. Treat others as ends in themselves (rather than as means to your ends)

x. If we do not accept this logic, our whole ethical and legal system falls apart

xi. Social coercion is not addressed

3. Act as though you are living in an ideal kingdom where everyone was subject and sovereign at the same time

i. Application of 1st formulation to institutions/community

ii. Must enable society as a whole to use pure reason

iii. My relationship to the community as a whole, to the social construct

iv. This is citizenship

1. A lot of people were willing to die for this (1789 - the people killed a king)

2. Citizenship is what is left for you after you accept the rules of the state

v. Obligation to the community to respect each individual's capacity to become free

vi. What is my moral responsibility to individuals who are absent?

 

How do I live the good life by using pure reason?

 

Concerned with individual actions - this is what we test

 

Happiness is an indirect duty

Duty to habituate yourself to a position of reflexive moral judgment

Capable of spontaneous moral action - don't have to think about it - happy in doing my duty

How must I train/shape myself over time that I do without even thinking about it the moral thing?

If I'm miserable all the time, it won't be easy for me to be moral

 

Virtue is the idea of the good that suggests everything we take to mean the good life is a product of habituation

 

Kant = virtue ethicist - only one virtue = pure reason - "think for yourself" - obligated to make ourselves happy to make it so moral actions are habit

 

We are not really able to be a perfect moral being, but we should be constantly striving to live my life in a way that I can affirm it by pure reason

 

Kant: no relative culturally specific good, just one (categorical imperative)

 

Withdraw from the world in order to go back into it - you now live life differently

 

For Business Ethics - Chapter 4 - 'Business ethics' II: intentions

 

Norman Bowie - contemporary Kant defender

Concedes that Kantian business practices not compatible with shareholder governance typical in US business

Presents Kant in a way that is accessible to business ethics audience

o Superficial interpretation

o Downplays/ignores certain aspects

More uncertainty/unrest in Kant's work than Bowie suggests

 

Immanuel Kant

Morally practical vs technically practical reason

o Morally practical

Practical philosophy

Freedom

Morality

Beauty

Theoretical philosophy

Facts

Determinate, law-like relationships pertaining to facts

o Technically practical reason

Chemistry, economics, etc.

These are excluded from the domain of morality as they are primarily motivated by an understanding of how things work in the real world

Emphasis on uncertainty and unrest as hallmarks of morality

Central to his concerns are the ideas of human limitation and finitude

 

Bowie's version of Kant

Typical deontological interpretation of Kantian ethics:

The highest good is good will

Acting out of good will = acting out of duty

It is the duty, not the consequences of the act, that makes the act good

 

Deontology - an ethics of duties

 

Kant is described, not very accurately, as the opposite of utilitarianism

Earlier work (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals), this may be true

Later work (Metaphysics of Morals) he is interested in ends, not in a utilitarian sense, but ends derived from a principle which tells us which ends are objectively worth pursuing, which gives rise to a rational desire for them (i.e. human dignity, happiness)

His point is that ethical theories cannot be justified by such ends

 

2 kinds of duties: hypothetical and categorical imperatives

Hypothetical imperatives

o Always based on certain conditions

o Typically "if/then" statements

Categorical imperatives

o Not based on conditions

o Why do we do these things?

1. Good will wants you to accept and carry out this duty

2. Faculty of reason within you which allows you to recognize the good will within you and to act accordingly

o A reasonable person would want to comply with this duty; implies we are able to choose what reason suggests is good

o Bowie gives 3 formulations of this imperative:

1. Act only on maxims that you can will to be universal laws of nature

2. Always treat the humanity in a person as an end and never merely as a means

3. Act as if you were a member of an idea kingdom in which you are both subject and sovereign at the same time

o Rational test to determine if your acts are morally permissible

 

In some practical circumstances, we might accept lying

i.e. don't want to hear very bad news, listen to criticism

Kant/Bowie would say in this instance, you are not capable of rationality

Not in control of your own will, guided by fear

 

Rational autonomy/sovereignty is what gives humans dignity

Others must therefore be treated as ends rather than as means to your ends

Without this, ethical/legal system falls apart

 

These ideas could prevent managers from doing things for short term benefit

Should not undermine individual's autonomy

Business practices should develop humane/rational/moral capacities people (both inside and outside) the organization

However this doesn't mean bad things won't happen

o We may think layoff is immoral because employee used as means to increase shareholder wealth

o Bowie: layoffs are not immoral because open/reasonable relationship between employee/employer, each party knows it might end

o Relationship preserves the freedom of both parties (employee can quit, employer can demote/fire)

o Bowie doesn't consider that some business practices (bluffing, dismissals) violate 3rd formulation of categorical imperative - he says bluffing is moral if everyone has open access to all relevant info

 

Employees are not free

Rules (formal and informal)

Need financial security to quit

Employer may be violating 3rd formulation of categorical imperative (threat of dismissal, bluffing, etc.)

o Does this help others achieve autonomy?

o Does firing really = new opportunities?

Kant: once you fire those people, you must do something to ensure they don't lose their freedom/dignity

 

Kant's utopia = Kingdom of ends

Ends in the immaterial sense (not hedonistic)

Happiness and dignity, not power and opulence

 

Search for happiness necessary for free, rational person

An end is an object of choice belonging to a rational being

You cannot be forced to have certain ends (values) - Kant believes this idea to be contradictory

 

McGregor: Theory X and Theory Y

X: people are lazy and need control

Y: people are motivated and need encouragement

People will behave how managers treat them

Bowie says Kant endorses theory Y, but would Kant endorse a theory that treats people as object?

 

Capitalism is in violation of the 2nd formulation of the categorical imperative

People must sell their labor

Goal of business = make money

Therefore humans are treated as resources - means to an end

 

Kant recognizes pain people can cause to others if they consider only their own ends

 

Duty, certainty, and moral conflict

What would happen if we achieved a purely rationalized, technocratic morality?

No conflict between inclination and properly moral disposition

o Most acts done out of fear or hope

o No acts done out of duty

This wouldn't be good because struggle is necessary to develop strong morals

 

Difference between a person who acts according to duty (because they think it's good to follow orders) and a person who acts out of duty (because of moral disposition)

What if people do the right things without a moral disposition?

What matters is the intention that motivates the action

 

We cannot think about freedom without considering inner compulsion

Decide for yourself rather than have someone make a decision on your behalf

Without inner compulsion, we lose freedom and dignity

 

We have an ethical duty to know ourselves, but we shouldn't think it's easy to do so

We are never certain of our moral intent; perhaps this is something we can never completely understand

Avoid self-deception (i.e. pretend to know all about your motives for acting in a particular way)

Our inability to become morally perfect = inability to gain true self-knowledge

 

Kant believes in moral progress

He set out to define pure morality which may theoretically help people think about this progress

Not a description of actual practices (these do not in themselves result in moral purity)

Concedes that instinct is more effective for survival, wealth, happiness than reason

 

Permanent discontent with morality; ethics is painful

Urges you to consider the darker aspects of your moral disposition

Related to a restriction/constraint of the self

Being good is an unending personal struggle

 

Moral virtuousness is related to freedom

Senses, impulses, habits, customs, traditions cannot be the basis of moral dignity

o These offer justifications

o Social contexts influence, but do not determine morals

To act out of duty is to act out of freedom

o Resist coercion by others

o Acknowledge that other values will always influence you

 

Not interested in social control of individual behavior, but in how enlightened people try to reason

At odds with what typical business ethicists are after

Bowie uses a highly technocratic interpretation in order to make Kant fit into business ethics

 

Humans have aims and intentions, but the world is confusing and aimless

The world as it is and the world we would like

There is no point in complaining about the limitations of thought

 

Achieving happiness and achieving virtuousness are two entirely different things: rational happiness = everything goes according to your own free will

 

Morally transparent world would exclude all morality

If everything was clear, there would be choice and no ethics

Kant would condemn effort to create moral transparency: freedom/autonomy is based upon an acceptance of human limitation

o If we were perfect, no need for choice

o If you know you will be rewarded for your actions, your intentions cannot really be good

 

Happiness should not be the main reason to act virtuously

The good and happiness are different matters

Morality is how we become worthy of happiness

Being good is not a rule, it is an endless struggle