"'The modern business ethics conversation, began in the late 1960s as an outgrowth of the social and political activism movements. Issues such as social quality and government accountability, came to the forefront of public interest, and more and more people started examining the authority, practices, and motivations of large corporations,' the man continued. 'Business ethics are moral values that a company employs in shaping its strategies and practices, and/or in creating a standard to which it holds its employees. Like an individual, ethics must address big-picture concerns—how it does business—and individual ones—how employees are treated. Determining what actions are or are not moral is tricky for a business—a business is not an individual, but neither is a business a single entity with the power of reason—rather it is at the mercy of the opinions and interests of many—nor is a business a governing body with a moral obligation to its people.
Is there even a place for ethics in the world of business? It depends on what you consider to be the imperative of a business. One could argue that businesses don’t need to worry about ethics, because they are not rational beings that must adhere to a moral code—that they exist solely to make money for its owners or shareholders. (Which, in a way, is not unlike the ultimate human goal of “happiness.”) From a Machiavellian perspective, businesses should be allowed to do whatever it takes to make money, and as much money, however they can. But they’d have to do that while still operating within the confines of the law. From an ethical perspective, it would be against the self-interest of a business to break the law—or antagonize its employees, or engage in price-gouging, or sell a faulty product—because that would harm the public image of the business. Decreased public trust, not to mention charges of doing harm, leads to decreased revenues, thus hurting its imperative to make money.
A company that operates in an entirely legal way, might not do so in ways that are just or even palatable. For example, a business that fires a large number of employees and then reroutes that money to executives isn’t behaving illegally, but this action would have an incredibly negative impact on a lot of people and cast the company’s decision-makers in a negative light. Even if such practices were perfectly legal, most ethical schools would probably find them to be morally suspect.
But businesses are a part of society, and an influential one—they’re publicly present, and they have a huge impact on the economy by way of selling goods or services, paying employees, paying taxes, and so forth. For these reasons, businesses are not immune to the moral standards that guide individuals or governments. Ultimately, it’s in a company’s best interest to maintain good relations with the public (and its shareholders, and its customers) by operating from a morally good standpoint.
Relativism comes into play in a big way with business ethics. For example, it’s considered unethical—and illegal, actually—to pay workers in the United States anything less than the minimum wage. (Some would argue for a higher standard, such as a 'fair' or 'livable' wage, but those standards are harder to define.) Though the minimum wage varies from state to state, it is set at a federal level and no one can be paid less than that minimum on an hourly basis. For this reason, labor costs for manufacturing in the United States are quite high. This is the main reason why many American companies have moved operations overseas. A shoe manufacturer, for example, may choose to operate a factory in the developing world and pay workers pennies to assemble a pair of shoes, whereas that same operation in the US could cost a hundred times that in labor. (There is also far less regulation of factories and working conditions in other nations, both of which cost money and slow down production.) Also potentially problematic is the issue of child labor. In the United States, labor laws prevent children from working in factories, and certainly not for eighteen hours a day, in part because such practices are considered immoral in American culture. Other countries have different standards in regard to child labor.
At the end of the day, businesses operate overseas to maximize profits. But such businesses are actually skirting moral-based US laws. A business engages in exploitation when it pays workers overseas as little as possible simply because it can get away with it. This is all due to moral relativism. One might try to explain away these practices using the tenets of moral relativism. But such arguments fall apart because the relative comparison itself is false: Two different cultures and two different moral blueprints are being compared on a relative basis. That shoe company is exploiting cultural differences in an overseas location to drive down costs and drive up profits—it is not providing low-wage jobs out of respect for the moral standards of another culture.
There’s more moral shaky ground in the areas of advertising and marketing. Advertising 'works' on everyone, even the most sophisticated consumer, because messages about products find a way to embed themselves in our brains over time. (If advertising didn’t work, it wouldn’t be used.) However, ethical concerns accompany that power to manipulate. For example, most reasonably savvy adults understand that advertising claims are exaggerations. Such claims are either stated directly (e.g., “It’s the dog food your dog will love best!”) or dramatized or suggested (e.g., a dog happily eating the food and then dancing on its hind legs, thanks to the magic of visual special effects). In other words, advertisements lie.
Is it ethical to proclaim falsehoods, even if people know the claims are false and know to take them with a grain of salt? Perhaps not, because some viewers are highly impressionable, children in particular. Toward the end of the twentieth century, the federal government cracked down on advertising to children because many thought their trust and innocence were being exploited. The main purveyors of ads to children at the time were makers of sugar cereals and fast food, products that could be tied to a growing childhood obesity epidemic. Businesses have a responsibility not to harm their clients in the pursuit of making money, and advertising practices can easily cause a company to step over this boundary.
In Politics, way back when philosophy started as guidelines for politicians. In ancient Greece—and to major philosophers such as John Locke and Niccolo Machiavelli—philosophy and politics were intertwined. Socrates, Plato, and others, frequently wrote about and discussed the best way by which men—only men at the time—could reach down deep and apply the noble virtues they possessed, so as to lead others in a just and ethical way. The baseline of personal ethics informed politics, but then personal ethics also became a subject of its own inquiry. Today, with so much work already done to develop ethics and investigate the meaning of terms like 'just' and 'ethical,' it’s incumbent upon politicians to lead in an ethical manner. Politicians chosen by the people—or born into power—face many specific ethical challenges, all ultimately boiling down to a need to rule and govern in ways that are just and fair. But how do they do that, and who do they most serve?
Running for office or holding an elected position brings great power . . . and great responsibility. A vote for a candidate is an expression of trust, and politicians must try to both represent the voters’ interests and keep their own campaign promises to the best of their abilities. And yet politicians by and large do not enjoy a reputation as a group of people who have a great deal of integrity or moral fiber. Every election season, the same displeasures with politicians soak the cultural ether, primarily revolving around negative campaigning, truth-bending or outright lying, and a collective curiosity as to just why someone is interested in pursuing power.
Most politicians have a genuine interest in public service, but many politicians have differing ideas on what that means. Simply defining who 'the public' is can be a challenge. Do politicians serve the people? If so, then which people? All the people or just their voters? Do politicians serve an area’s interests, and do the needs of the individuals of that area differ from those of the major institutions or employers that also occupy that area? Or is it the responsibility of a politician to serve legal constructs, ideals, or constitutions in an effort just to keep the peace? All of these targets may have conflicting values. Democracy works slowly, and change is hard to come by, so a commitment to change to the morally good requires resolve.
Another ethical issue with regard to politicians is their personal life. In the US, there are countless examples of elected officials who, when news of their extramarital affairs become public, have to issue a public apology and then resign their position. In other countries, such as France, it’s more culturally acceptable for adults, and politicians, to have affairs. Constituents in such countries are able to separate a politician’s personal life from his or her public life, and then judge the political performance of their elected officials solely on that basis. It’s an ethical quandary to determine if politicians’ private lives are indeed private, because they are also public figures. Moreover, opinions of political figures can change if they fail to uphold long-held cultural values—and their performance as public figures can then be called into question.
Money can also certainly cloud the ethical purity of politicians. When campaigns receive money from individuals or organizations who are not also their constituents, a potential conflict of interest is created. Who are well-funded politicians truly beholden to: their donors or their voters?
We also wonder about a politician’s intentions. There are certainly benefits to the job—being famous and having tremendous power and influence are very attractive to some people. But political jobs bring with them intense scrutiny and criticism. Everything one says, does, or votes on is fair game. It makes a person wonder why anybody would ever want to be a politician. There are lots of reasons, and they come from all over the ethical spectrum. Some politicians have a genuine desire to effect change via legislation, or working from inside the 'the belly of the beast.' Others might be coming from a place of self-interest—the desire for power, for example. Motivations can be multiple, of course, and some politicians feel compelled by a desire to defeat 'evil'—or their opponent, who, if the negative campaign ads are to be believed, would be a very bad choice for voters. But no matter what reasons politicians give on the campaign trail for wanting the job, we can’t help but wonder why they’re really running for office.
Despite the persistent cliché that all politicians are corrupt liars, we expect our politicians to be trustworthy and truthful. Perhaps this is because we have to—we have to vote for somebody, and we want to believe that the candidate we select is the morally superior one. It’s in our self-interest and that of the greater good to elect the candidates who we think are the most virtuous, and to reject the ones who will be easily swayed by money and 'special interests.' In American democracy, the 'checks and balances' innate in the system (along with whistle-blowers, a free press, and an impeachment process) have been set in place to help limit that kind of corruption, and the idea that leaders are above the law.
We want, and expect, our politicians to be a little bit better than average. We want them to lead by example and be the best of the best (an image we sometimes force upon them with fervor and hagiography, elevating them to demigod status in a way to justify giving them so much power and trusting they use it wisely). We want them to exhibit virtue ethics and to be the very best. We want them to be truthful and responsible, to truly care, and to work hard to find solutions to the problems we face.
Moral philosophy is concerned with determining the virtues and reasons behind ethics. Laws are the practical, political, and codified applications of those ethics. Between those two systems are social ethics, the formal name for the moral standards, norms, and unofficial code of conduct that’s expected from a person in the world, or in one’s particular society, culture, or community.
Social ethics are built on the shared values of many. But social values are different from those individual values.
Individual values are virtues that each person seeks out for oneself, and they can be as varied as the person. These personal values don’t necessarily become social values, nor do they become part of the framework that is social ethics. This is because of the intent of the value itself. Individual values, while virtuous and good (bravery, courage, and integrity are all examples) merely benefit the individual, or at least frame how that individual should lead his or her individual life. Social values, by contrast, are explicitly concerned with the welfare of others. The drive to help others—or even the abstract idea of 'other people'—is what makes a value a social value. Having those social values in mind affects an individual’s thoughts and behaviors. Individuals then take on these ethics, and that, in turn, helps build the social ethics of a society.
