Task 1: Return to Chapter 1 to review Kant's theory. Explain in your own words what the categorical imperative is.Task 2: Compare your analysis on the Chapter 2 cases you studied previously. How would

Un iversity Co lleg e Ch ich ester A Kantian Approach to Business Ethic s NORMAN E. BO W IE Pag es 61- 71 from D onaldson , T., W erhane , P .H., an d C ording, M . (2002) Ethi cal Iss ues i n Busi ness: a phi loso phi cal ap pr oach . 7t h. e dn. N ew Jer sey : Prentice Ha ll Ev en the most cur sor y for ay into b usiness ethi cs w ill br ing one face to face with Kanti ani sm . Indeed Ka nt's i nfluenc e o n that br anch of ethi cal th eor y know n as d eon tol ogy is so str ong that s ome writer s si mpl y refer to deo ntol og y as Ka nti ani sm . D espi te the fact tha t Ka nt's na me i s often i nvoked in busi ness ethi cs, as o f 19 97 ther e w as no p ubl ished bo ok th at sy stem ati cally appl ied Kantia n t heory to busin ess. (How ev er, Bo wie (1999) fills t his g ap.) K ant is best k now n for defendi ng a v ersion o f the "respect for per sons" pr inciple which i m plies th at a ny busi ness pr acti ce th at puts mo ney on a p ar w ith pe opl e is im moral, but ther e i s muc h mor e to a Ka nti an a ppr oach t o busine ss ethi cs than this. In t his ess ay, I focus o n so me of the implicatio ns o f K ant's t hree for m ulati ons of the fundam ent al pr inciple o f ethics. I t hen sh ow why Kant's emp hasi s on t he pur ity of our intenti ons i n act ing mor ally has cr eat ed pr obl em s for a K anti an the ory of busi ness et hics. BACKGROUND Kant w as b orn in 17 24 in Koni gsber g in E ast Pr ussi a, n ot far from th e Bal tic Sea. H e sp ent his e ntire life w ithi n 26 ki lometers of K oni gsber g an d died t her e in 18 04. Today , K oni gsber g is locate d i n a s mall str ip o f R ussi an t erritor y betw een P oland and Lithua nia, an d i s cal led Kal iningrad. K ant's m ajor w ritings on e thical theory occur red be tw een 1 785 an d 179 7. K ant ar gued tha t the hig hest g ood w as the good w ill. T o act from a g ood w ill is to act from duty. Thus, i t is the i ntenti on behi nd an acti on rather than i ts cons eq uenc es that make th at ac tion g ood. For ex ampl e, for Kan t if a m ercha nt i s hon est so as to ear n a good r epu tati on, thes e ac ts o f bei ng honest ar e not g enui nely mor al. The mer cha nt i s onl y tr uly mor al if he or sh e i s hon est beca use bei ng honest is rig ht (one's du ty). Persons o f good w ill do th eir duty beca use it is th eir duty and for no ot her reaso n. It i s thi s em phasi s on du ty, and the lack o f concer n with conseq uenc es, t hat m akes Ka nt t he q uintessen tial deon tol ogist. But w hat d oes Ka nti an mor ality thi nk our duties ar e? Ka nt disti nguished betw een tw o ki nds of duty (imper ati ves) . So metimes w e do so methi ng so that we may get some thing else. W e go to w ork to ear n mo ney or stu dy to ear n good g rades. If you w ant g ood grades, y ou ou ght to st udy . Kan t refer red to thi s ki nd of duty as a hypotheti cal im per ati ve beca use i t is of the for m if you want to d o x, do y . The duty to st udy is de pen dent on your de si re for good grades. BA M321 - 1 - 2004/ 05 Chr is Do wns Un iversity Co lleg e Ch ich ester Other duties ar e r equired pe r s e, w ith n o ifs, ands or bu ts. K ant des cribed these du ties as cat egorical and r efer red to t he funda me ntal pr inciple o f ethi cs as th e cat egorical im perative. H e bel ieved that r eas on pr ov ided t he basi s for the c ateg orical imper ative, thus th e ca teg orical im peratives o f mor ality were requirements of reaso n. Al thoug h Kan t sp ok e o f "th e" cat egorical im per ati ve, he for m ulate d it in ma ny ways. M ost com m entator s focus o n three for m ulati ons : 1. A ct only o n m axim s which you ca n w ill to b e u niversa l la ws o f n ature . 2. Al ways tr eat the hu mani ty in a per son as an e nd, an d n ever as a me ans mer ely. 3. So act as i f you w ere a me mb er of an i deal ki ng dom of ends in w hich y ou were both su bject an d sov ereign at the sa me time. Kant bel ieved t hat onl y hu man bei ng s can fol low laws of thei r ow n c hoosi ng (i.e., act r ation ally). H uman bei ng s ar e t he onl y cr eatur es th at ar e free, a nd i t is the fact t hat w e ar e free th at e nables us to be r ational and m oral. Our free will is what g ives us ou r di gnity and unc ondi tione d w orth. Kant's ethi cs the n is an et hics o f duty rather than an ethi cs of conse quences. The et hical person is the p erson w ho acts from th e r ight intenti ons. W e ar e able to a ct in this w ay this b ecause w e h ave free w ill. T he fu nd am en tal pr inciple o f et hics, th e categ orical imper ati ve, is a r equirem ent of reason an d is bi ndi ng on al l rational bei ng s. Thes e ar e th e essen tials of Ka nt's e thics. Le t us see how they ap ply, speci fically, to b usines s ethi cs. THE S ELF- DEFEA TING N ATURE OF IM MORAL AC TION S Kant's first for mulatio n of th e ca teg orical im pe rativ e is "Act o nly on th at m axim by which y ou can at t he sa m e tim e w ill that it should bec om e a univ ersal law ." Al thoug h the phr asi ng is aw kwar d, Kant is pr oviding a test to s ee i f any pr opos ed acti on , including acti ons in busines s, i s mor al. Si nc e K ant bel ieved that ev er y acti on has a max im, w e ar e t o ask what w oul d hap pen if the pr inciple ( maxim) of your acti on w ere a u niversal law (one th at ev er yone acte d on) . W ould a w orld w her e ev er yone act ed on that pr inciple be possi ble? On e ex ampl e Kan t us ed t o illustr ate hi s the ory w as a b usiness on e. Supp ose y ou des per ately neede d mon ey. Sh oul d y ou ask so me one to l end you mon ey w ith a pr om ise t o pay the mo ney back but w ith n o intent ion o f pay ing it back? D o your ex treme financi al ci rcumst ances justi fy a l ying pr omi se? To find out , Kant w oul d r equire us t o uni versalize the max im o f thi s acti on: "It is m orally per mi ssi ble for any one i n desp erate fina nci al circumsta nces t o make a l ying pr omi se, t hat is, to pr omi se to repay borrowed mon ey w ith no i ntenti on o f doi ng so ." W ould such a uni versalized m axim be logical ly coher ent ? K ant ( 1990, p. 19) answ er s w ith a r eso un ding no. BA M321 - 2 - 2004/ 05 Chr is Do wns Un iversity Co lleg e Ch ich ester And c oul d I say to my sel f th at ev er yone may make a fal se pr omi se when he i s in a difficulty from w hich h e ca nn ot esca pe? Im medi ately I se e that I cou ld w ill th e lie b ut n ot a universa l la w to lie . Fo r w ith su ch a law ther e w oul d be no pr omi ses at all, inas mu ch as i t w oul d be futi le to make a pr ete nse of my inten tion i n regard to futur e acti ons to thos e who w oul d not b elieve thi s pr etense or - if they ov er hasti ly di d so - woul d pay me back i n my ow n coi n. Thus my max im w oul d n ecessar ily destr oy itsel f as s oon as it w as mad e a uni versal law. Notice w hat Ka nt i s not say ing her e. H e is not say ing that i f ev er yone ma de lying pr omi ses, the con seq uences w oul d be bad- althoug h t hey w oul d. R ather , Rant i s say ing that th e very concept of lying pr omi ses, w hen ad opt ed as a pr inciple by ev er yone, i s incoh erent. Thus th e ca teg orical im per ati ve functi ons as a tes t to see if th e pr inciples (m ax im s) upo n w hich an ac tion i s bas ed ar e mor ally per mi ssi ble. The ac tion can o nly be u nder take n i f th e pr inciple o n w hich th e acti on i s base d passes the t est of the c ateg orical im perative. A b usiness m anag er w ho acc epts Kanti an mor ality w oul d ask for any given deci sion, d oes the pr inciple on w hich the deci sion is bas ed pass th e tes t of th e cat egorical im per ati ve, th at is, can i t be w illed uni versally withou t co ntr adi cti on? If it can, th en t he deci sion w oul d be mor ally per mi ssi ble. If it ca nn ot, t he acti on is mor ally for bidden. Let us con sider tw o o ther e xamples to illu stra te Ka nt's p oint. First, t hef t by empl oy ees, man agers, and cust om er s i s a major pr obl em i n busine ss. Supp ose tha t an em ploy ee, ang ry at the bos s for so me j usti fied reason, consi der s st eal ing from th e firm. C oul d a maxim which per mi tted st eal ing be uni versalized? It coul d not. Beca use g oods an d ser vices ar e i n lim ited sup ply and uni versal col lecti ve ow ner shi p is im possi ble, t he i nstituti on o f pr ivate pr oper ty has dev elop ed. If a max im th at per mitted st eal ing w ere uni versalized, ther e c oul d be no pr ivate pr oper ty. If ev er yone w ere free to tak e from ev ery one el se , th en no thi ng coul d be ow ned. Gi ven the pr acti cal necessi ty of some form of pr ivate p roper ty, a u niver sal ized m axim tha t perm itted steal ing woul d be sel f-defeating. T hus , if the em ploy ee ste als from th e b oss, the the ft is m ora lly wro ng. Anot her ex am ple fou nd in the pr ess co ncer ns com pani es th at tr y to reneg oti ate co ntr acts. A favorite pl oy of Gen eral M otor s, es peci ally w ith Jose Lop ez in char ge, w as to de ma nd pr ice r educti ons from neg oti ated c ontr acts with suppl iers. In thi s way, Gener al M otors cut costs an d co ntr ibut ed to i ts bott om l ine. W ould suc h a t acti c pass t he t est of th e ca teg orical impe rative? No, it co uld n ot. If a m axim that per mi tte d co ntr act br eaki ng w ere uni versalized, ther e c ould b e no co ntr acts ( and con tracts w oul d ce as e to ex ist). N o one w oul d enter into a c ontr act i f he or sh e b elieved th e o ther party had no i ntenti on of ho noring it. A u niver sal ized m axim tha t perm itted contr act br eaki ng w oul d be sel f-defea ting … BA M321 - 3 - 2004/ 05 Chr is Do wns Un iversity Co lleg e Ch ich ester The tes t of th e cat egorical im perative bec om es a pr inciple of fai r pl ay . One of the essen tial featur es of fair play is that one does not make an ex cepti on of ones elf. For ex ampl e, Kant ( 199 0, p. 4 1) say s: W hen w e o bserve o urselve s in a ny transgre ssion of a duty, w e find th at we d o n ot a ctually will t hat our m axim sh ou ld becom e a un iversa l la w. That i s im possi ble for us; r ather th e co ntr ary of thi s max im s houl d remai n as t he l aw gener ally, and w e onl y tak e th e l iber ty of maki ng an ex cepti on t o it for our selves or for th e sak e of inclinati on, a nd for thi s one occasi on. C onseq uentl y, if w e w eighed ev ery thing from on e a nd the s ame sta ndpoi nt, n amel y reaso n, w e w oul d co me upo n a co ntra dicti on in o ur own w ill, viz., th at a ce rta in p rincip le is objectiv ely necess ary as a uni versal law and y et su bjecti vely does n ot h old uni versally but r ather admi ts ex cepti ons. Thus th e ca teg orical im per ati ve capt ur es o ne of the key feat ur es o f mor ality. Unless th e pr inciple of your acti on ca n b e univer sal ized, to mak e an ex cepti on fo r y ourse lf is imm ora l. I hav e freq ue ntl y used these ar guments w ith ex ecuti ves w ho may find t hem theor etically per suasi ve bu t w ho, n one thel es s, thi nk tha t th eir pr acti cal appl icati on i s lim ited i n the r eal w orld o f business. They poi nt o ut that, i n the real w orld, contracts ar e o ften "ren eg otiat ed" and y et busin ess p eopl e still eng ag e i n co ntr act- m aking. These ex ecuti ves r aise an i nter esti ng point. H owever, an ex ami nati on o f w hat goes on i n th e b usines s w orld does mor e to vindi cate Ka nt t han to r efute hi m. Consi der the fol lowing real -wor ld si tuati ons. W hen on v acation in O cean City , Mary land, my favorite seafood outl et had a l arge si gn on t he w all say ing , " W e do not c ash checks an d h ere is why." Bel ow the si gn and ne ar ly co vering the en tire w all were photoc opi es of checks t hat ha d b een returne d w ith "Ret urne d: Insu fficient Fun ds" stam ped in large l etter s. At l east i n thi s retail outl et, a thr esh old had bee n crossed. A su fficientl y large nu mber of cus tom er s w rote ba d ch eck s so that it w as no lo ng er p ossible t o us e ch ecks i n th at ret ail store. Su ppose a m axim perm itting w riting checks w ithout su fficient fun ds in t he ba nk t o cov er them w as r eal ly uni versalized. T her e w oul d be no i nstituti on o f check w riting . W hile l ectur ing in P oland i n 19 95, I w as i nform ed th at, s hor tly after the fal l of co mm uni sm , ther e was a bank c ollaps e b ecaus e p eopl e di d no t pay on thei r loans. A nd ex per ts g ener ally ag ree that one of the i m pedi men ts to t he dev elopm ent of capi talism i n R ussi a i s th e fai lure of various par ties to pay their bills. A s upplier is reluctant to prov ide a product i f it is no t kn ow n if and w hen pay me nt w ill be r eceived. BA M321 - 4 - 2004/ 05 Chr is Do wns Un iversity Co lleg e Ch ich ester Fi nal ly, ther e h as b een consi der abl e s pec ulati on r egarding th e futur e of capi tal ism in H ong Kon g now that th e C hinese hav e r egained sov ereign ther e. As b usiness co mm ent ator s hav e poi nted o ut, H ong Ko ng ha d dev elope d a l egal sy stem t hat en for ced business con tracts a nd l imi ted t he influenc e o f politics. In China, pol itical influenc e pl ay s a much greater role. If th e tr adi tion of legal en forcement tha t has b een dev elop ed i s und er mi ned, c an H ong Kong sur vive as a thr iving pr osper ous m ajor center of business pr acti ce ? A Ka nti an w oul d ag ree w ith the ec ono mi sts here. Hong Kong w oul d l ose its pr em ier sta ndi ng as a co mm er cial ce nter and woul d su ffer ec on omi cally… Thus th e ca teg orical im per ati ve i s not i rrelevant i n th e w orld o f business. I f a max im for an acti on w hen uni versalized i s sel f-defea ting , th en t he conte m plate d acti on i s not ethi cal . That is Ka nt's conce ptual point. And w hen eno ug h pe opl e be hav e im morally in that s ens e, cer tain b usiness pr actices l ike the use of ch ecks or cr edit b eco m e im possibl e. TREA TING S TAK EH OLDERS AS PER SON S Since h um an bei ng s h ave free w ill and th us a re able to act from law s req uired by reason, Kan t believed t hey hav e di gnity or a v alue b eyond pr ice. Thus, o ne hum an bei ng ca nn ot u se an oth er si mply to sati sfy hi s or her ow n i nter ests. This is the c ore insight behi nd K ant's s eco nd for m ulation of the c ateg orical im per ative: "Al way s tr eat th e h umani ty in a pe rson as an end an d n ever as a mea ns mer ely." W hat ar e the implicati ons of thi s form ulati on o f the categ orical im per ative for busi nes s? Fi rst, i t shoul d b e pointed o ut that th e "r es pec t for persons " pr inciple, as I s hal l cal l it, do es n ot pr ohi bit com m er cial tr ansac tions. N o one is use d as mer ely a mea ns i n a v olunt ar y econo mi c ex chang e w her e bo th par ties be ne fit. W hat thi s form ulati on o f the categ orical imper ati ve does is to put some co nstr aints on t he nat ur e o f eco nom ic tr ans acti ons. To un der sta nd Kan t fully her e, we need to dr aw a disti ncti on betw een neg ati ve f reedom an d posi tive f reedom. N egative freedo m i s freed om from coer cion and dec epti on. Ka nt sc hol ar C hristi ne K orsgaar d ( 1996, pp. 1 40- 1) has p ut it this w ay: Accor ding to the For mula of H umani ty, coer cion a nd dec epti on ar e the most fun dam ental for ms of w rong doing to o thers - the r oots of all ev il. Coer cion a nd dec epti on v iolate th e co ndi tions of possi ble asse nt, an d all acti ons w hich dep end for thei r nat ur e a nd efficacy on t hei r co er cive or dece ptive char ac ter ar e on es t hat oth ers ca nnot asse nt t o… Phy sical coer cion tr eats som eon e's p erson as a to ol, lying tr eats some on e's r eas on as a to ol. That is w hy Kant finds i t so hor rifying: it is a di rect v iolati on of aut ono my . BA M321 - 5 - 2004/ 05 Chr is Do wns Un iversity Co lleg e Ch ich ester However, si mpl y refraining from coer cive or decepti ve acts is no t su fficient for respecti ng th e h um ani ty in a per son . A ddi tional requireme nts ca n b e der ived from K ant's view of po sitive freed om . P ositive free do m i s the freedom t o dev elop o ne's hu ma n capaci ties. For K ant, th at m eans d evelopi ng one's rational and m oral ca pacities. I n interacti ng w ith ot her s, w e m ust n ot do any thi ng to di mi nish or inhi bit thes e u niquel y hum an c apacities. Thus, tr eating th e h umani ty in a p erson as a n end , a nd not as a m eans mer ely, in a busi ness r elations hip r equires tw o thi ngs. Fi rst, i t requires th at peo ple i n a b usiness relations hip not be use d, i.e., th ey not be c oer ced or decei ved. S eco nd, i t m eans tha t business or gani zations a nd busi nes s pr acti ces sh oul d be ar rang ed s o th at t hey con tribute t o the dev elop ment of hum an r ation al and mo ral capaci ties, rather th an i nhibit the dev elop men t of these cap acities. Thes e r equireme nts, i f impleme nted, w oul d c hang e th e natur e of busi ness pr actice. A few ex ampl es ar e i n or der . Amer icans h ave bee n dee ply concer ne d a bout th e massi ve layoffs created by the dow nsi zing of cor por ati ons i n th e e arly and mi d- 199 0s. Ar e th es e l ayoffs im moral? A nai ve Ka ntian r esp onse w oul d l abel the m as i mmor al be cause, allegedl y, the em ploy ees ar e bei ng us ed as mer e me ans to enh anc e shar eh older w eal th. H owever, that j udg ment woul d be pr ematur e. W hat w oul d be r equired from a K antian p erspecti ve is an exami nati on of the empl oy er /empl oyee r elations hip, i ncludi ng any contr actual ag reem ents. S o long as th e r elationshi p w as nei ther coer cive nor dec epti ve, t her e w ould be nothi ng im moral abou t layoffs. W hat is hi ghly contest ed i s w heth er or not the sta ndar d em ploy er /empl oyee relationshi p i s co er cive and /or decep tive. Em ploy er s tend to ar gue t hat em ploy ees are w ell aw are o f the possi bility of lay offs w hen they tak e a posi tion an d, fur ther mo re, tha t em ploy ees hav e th e r ight, w hich they freq ue ntl y ex er cise, to take posi tions el sew here. Ther e i s nei ther decepti on nor coer cion in either stand ar d l abor co ntr acts or in th e i m plicit norms governing the em ploy er /empl oyee r elationshi p. On th e ot her hand, many empl oy ees ar gue t hat , in times of relatively hig h une mpl oyment an d job insecur ity, em ploy ees r eal ly must acc ept job offer s on m anageme nt t erm s. You take w hat y ou c an so as to eat, bu t y ou d o no t acc ept the thr eat of a layoff to enhance shar ehol der w eal th freely. M oreov er , in m any co mpa nies, such as IBM , ther e ha d be en a l ong tr adi tion of job secur ity in ex cha nge for em ployee lo ya lty. T he sudden unila tera l c hangin g o f th e ru les am oun ted to both dec epti on and co er cion o n th e p art of m anag em en t, or so it is ar gued. An ex ami nati on o f th es e op posi ng ar gum en ts woul d take us far bey ond t he scope of this ess ay. H owever, b y fram ing the issue i n ter m s of w het her or not coer cion and /or dece ption h as occ urred, one has a dopted a Kan tian appr oach to b usiness ethics. BA M321 - 6 - 2004/ 05 Chr is Do wns Un iversity Co lleg e Ch ich ester Anot her co ncer n ab out cont em por ar y busi nes s pr acti ce i s the ex tent to w hich empl oy ees hav e v ery limi ted know ledg e a bou t the affai rs o f the c ompany . In econ omi c term inolog y, ther e i s high inform ati on asy mmetr y betw een man agement an d t he empl oy ees. W her ev er one si de has i nfor mation t hat i t keeps from ot her si de , ther e i s a sev ere temptation for abuse of pow er and dece ption . A Kan tian w oul d l ook for w ays to reduc e th e i nfor mation asy mmetr y betw een manag em en t a nd em ployees. In pr acti cal ter m s, a Ka nti an w oul d en dor se t he pr acti ce know n as op en b ook man agement . Op en bo ok m anag em ent w as d eveloped by Jack Stac k at t he Spr ing field M anufact uring C omp any . Stack an d hi s co mp any w on a pr esti gious busi ness ethics aw ar d for th e t ech nique. U nder op en bo ok man agement , al l em ploy ees ar e g iven al l the financi al inform ati on about th e comp any on a r egular freq uent b asis. W ith c ompl ete infor mation an d the pr oper incenti ve, e m ploy ees be hav e r espo nsibly without th e n ecess ity of layers of super vision. How does op en bo ok man agement do w hat i t do es? The si mpl est answ er is this. Pe ople get a ch ance to act, to take res ponsi bility , rather than just doi ng th eir job… N o su per visor or depar tm ent h ead ca n anti cipate or ha ndl e all si tuati ons. A co mp any that hi red en oug h man agers to do s o w oul d g o br ok e from the ov er head. Ope n book m ana ge me nt ge ts pe op le on the job do ing t hings righ t. A nd it teaches the m to m ake s m ar t de cisions… bec aus e th ey can see t he i m pact o f thei r deci sions o n the r elevant n umber s ( Cas e, 1 995 , p p. 4 5-6). The a dop tion of pr acti ces l ike o pen bo ok man ageme nt w oul d g o far toward cor recti ng the asy m metrical infor mation th at man agers poss ess, a situati on that pr om otes a buse of pow er and dec epti on. Under open bo ok ma nageme nt, if a firm face d a si tua tion t hat mi ght involve the l ayoff of em ploy ees, ev er yone in the firm w oul d hav e access t o th e sa me infor m ati on. D ecep tion w oul d be very di fficult in such ci rcumst ances . S uspi cion w oul d be l ess an d, as a r esul t, coop er ati ve e fforts to addr ess t he pr obl em w oul d b e m ore likely. Open bo ok man agement al so en ha nces em ploy ee sel f-respec t. E m ploy ees at Spr ing field M anufact uring C omp any use Kan tian "r espec t for per so ns" lang uag e w hen d escr ibing the i m pact o f open bo ok man agement on w orking condi tions. Thus, ope n book m anag em ent lessens t he opp or tuni ty for dece ption an d su pp or ts neg ati ve freed om . By enhanci ng em ploy ee sel f-resp ect, ope n b ook m anag em ent s upp orts posi tive f reedom as w ell. W hat ar e the implications o f Ka nt's t heory of posi tive freedo m for business practi ce? To tr eat th e h uma nity in a p erson as an end in itsel f so meti mes r equires th at w e take so me posi tive acti on to hel p a per so n. This is required by the "respec t for per so ns" for m ulation of the c ateg orical BA M321 - 7 - 2004/ 05 Chr is Do wns Un iversity Co lleg e Ch ich ester im per ative, by some of Kant's ow n w riting on the nat ur e o f w ork, and by the demands of K ant's im pe rfect du ty of be nef icen ce to he lp ot hers. The r equirem ent th at b usiness pr acti ce be s uppor tive of posi tive freedo m h as wide im plications for b usiness practice . I w ill f ocus o n only one i m pli cation her e. I bel ieve K ant's mor al phi loso phy en ab les busi ness e thicists t o dev elop a use ful definition o f m eani ng ful w ork an d th at Kan tian ethi cs w oul d require comp ani es to pr ov ide mea ningful w ork so d efined. Al thoug h I c annot ci te al l the K anti an t exts i n thi s br ief ess ay, I thi nk the following condi tions for mea ningful w ork ar e c onsi stent w ith Kan t's v iew s. For a Kan tian, m eani ng ful wo rk: is freely chosen an d pr ov ides opp or tuni ties for the w orker to ex er cise auto nom y on t he j ob; supp or ts th e a utono my and ration ality of hu man b eings; w ork that l essens auto nom y or tha t unde rm ines r ational ity is immor al; pr ov ides a sal ary su fficient t o ex er cise i ndepe nde nce and pr ov ide for phy sical w ell-bei ng an d th e sati sfacti on of so me of the w orker 's des ires; ena bles a w orker to de velop r ational capacities; an d does not inter fer e w ith a w orker 's mor al developm ent . (Noti ce tha t th ese r equiremen ts ar e nor mati ve in th e se nse t hat th ey spel l ou t what mea ningful w ork oug ht t o be. Ther e i s no requireme nt that w orker s w ho ar e pr ov ided me ani ng ful w ork must t hem sel ves subj ecti vely e xper ience i t as mea ningful.) A m anag er taking the Kanti an a ppr oach to business ethi cs w oul d r egard pr ov iding meani ng ful w ork as a moral obl igati on. S ome ma nag em en t atti tudes and pr acti ces ar e mor e cond uci ve tow ard me eti ng thi s obligati on t han ot her s. Thus, K anti an ma nag ers need to cr eat e a c ertain ki nd of or gani zation. A discussi on of w hat a K anti an b usiness firm w oul d l ook l ike l eads directl y to a discussi on o f the thi rd for m ulation o f the categ orical im perative. THE BU SIN ESS FIR M AS A M ORAL C OMMUNITY Kant's thi rd for m ulati on of the c ateg orical imperative roug hly say s that y ou shoul d act as i f you w ere a me mber of an i deal ki ng dom of en ds i n which y ou were both su bject an d sov ereign at the sa me time. Or gani zations ar e comp ose d of per sons and, given the n atur e of per so ns, or ganization al str uctur es must tr ea t th e hu ma nity in per so ns with di gnity and r esp ec t ( as an end) . M oreov er , the rules th at g overn an or gani zation m ust b e rules that c an be e ndorsed by ev ery one i n the or gani zation. This uni versal en dor se men t by rational per so ns i s w hat en abl es Kan t to say that ev er yone i s both subj ect an d sov ereign with r espect to th e r ules tha t govern the m . I believ e a Ka nti an appr oach t o the or gani zational desi gn of a bu siness firm w oul d en do rse thes e pr inciples: BA M321 - 8 - 2004/ 05 Chr is Do wns Un iversity Co lleg e Ch ich ester 1. The b usiness firm sh ould co nsi der the i nter ests o f all the affecte d stakeh older s i n any de cision i t m akes. 2. The firm should have those affecte d by the firm 's r ules and pol icies par ticipat e i n the det er mi nati on of those rules and pol icies be for e they ar e i mplem ent ed. 3. It sho uld not be the ca se th at, for all d ecision s, the inter ests o f on e stakeh older aut om ati cally take pr iority. 4. W hen a s ituation arises w here it a ppears th at the intere st of one set of stakeh older s mus t be subor dinated t o th e i nterests o f an oth er set of stakeh older s, tha t decision sh oul d not be m ade sol ely on th e g roun ds that ther e is a g reat er num ber of st akeh older s i n on e g roup tha n in anot her . 5. No busi ness r ule or pr acti ce ca n b e adopted which i s inconsi sten t w ith the first tw o form ula tions o f the cat egorical imper ativ e. 6. Ev ery pr of it-m aki ng firm has a l imi ted, b ut g enui ne , d uty of ben eficenc e. 7. Ev ery busi ness firm m ust est abl ish pr oce dur es desi gne d t o ensur e that relations am ong stak ehol der s ar e g overned by rules o f justi ce. I thi nk the ration ale for most o f thes e pr inciples can be der ived f rom the ex planati on o f Ka nt's e thics al ready pr ov ided. Pr inciple 1 see m s l ike a str aightfor war d r equiremen t for any mor al th eory that tak es r esp ect for per sons s eriousl y. Si nce au ton omy is w hat m akes h umans w orthy of respect , a co mmi tm ent to pr inciple 2 i s required. Pr inciple 3 pr ov ides a ki nd of or gani zational legitima cy ; it ensur es t hat thos e i nvolved i n the firm recei ve some mi nimu m be ne fits from bei ng a par t of it. Pr inciple 4 r ules out utilita rianism as a crite rion for d ecisio n-m aking in th e m ora l firm . T he justi ficati on for pr inciple 6 i s base d on an ex tensi on of the indi vidual 's im per fect o bligati on of ben eficenc e w hich Ka nt d efende d i n the Met aphysics of Mo ra ls. Ther e K ant (199 4, p . 52) say s: That b eneficenc e i s a duty resul ts from the fact tha t si nce our self-love cann ot b e se par ated from our need to be loved by oth ers (to o btai n hel p from the m in th e c ase o f need) , w e th er eby make our sel ves an end for ot her s… henc e the ha ppi ness o f ot her s i s an end w hich i s at the s ame time a d uty. The str ategy her e i s to ex tend t his ar gument to th e cor por ate level. If corp oration s ha ve b enef ited from society, they h ave a d uty of benef icence to soci ety in retur n. An d c orpor ati ons h ave be ne fited. S ociety pr otects cor por ati ons by pr ov iding the me ans for enfor cing busi ness c ontr acts. It pr ov ides the i nfrastr uct ure w hich al lows the c orpor ati on t o functi on - such as roads, s anita tion facilities, p olice a nd fire prot ection - and , perha ps m ost im portantly, a n educated w ork fo rce w ith b oth the skills a nd a ttitu des re qu ire d to p erfor m w ell in a c orpor ate setti ng . Few w ould ar gue t hat cor por ate tax es BA M321 - 9 - 2004/ 05 Chr is Do wns Un iversity Co lleg e Ch ich ester pay the ful l cost of thes e be ne fits. Fi nal ly, pr inciple 7 i s a pr oc edur al pr inciple desi gned to ensur e th at w hatev er rules the co rpor ati on ad opts con form to the basi c pr inciples of justi ce. A Ka nti an view s an or gani zation as a mor al comm unity. Each me mb er of the or gani zation stan ds i n a m oral relationshi p to all the oth ers. On on e han d, t he man agers of a b usines s f irm sh oul d r espect the h umani ty in al l the per sons i n the or gani zation. On th e ot her hand , e ach i ndividual in a b usiness firm , man aged as a Ka nti an mor al communi ty, sho uld view the or gani zation o ther than pur ely instr umen tally, that i s, as m erely a m eans for achi ev ing indi vidual goal s. Or gani zations a re cr eate d as w ays of achi ev ing com m on goal s an d shar ed en ds. A n individual w ho v iew s the or ganization p urely instr umen tally is acti ng contr ary to t he "respect for persons " pr inciple. A m anag er w ho a dop ts the Kan tian pr inciples of a m oral firm mus t also l ook at hum an nat ur e i n a c ertain w ay. In ma nag em ent ter m s, t he the ory Y view of hum an nat ur e must be ado pte d rather than a theor y X views. [T he disti ncti on betw een t heory X and theor y Y w as made pr omi nent by M cGr eg or (196 0) .] Theor y X assume d t hat pe opl e ha d a n inherent di slike of w ork and woul d av oid i t if possi ble. I t al so assu me d t hat the aver ag e per son se eks t o av oid responsibility . The ory Y assum es th e o ppos ite: th at employ ees pre fer to ac t im ag inativ ely and creat ively and are w illin g to assume res ponsi bility . Althoug h we can de bat e a bou t which theor y is descr iptively mor e acc urate, as a nor mative mat ter a Ka nti an ma nag er sh oul d ado pt t heor y Y . For it is the ory Y that v iew s huma n beings as hav ing the di gnity Kant thi nks th ey des er ve. Moreov er , both th eor y X and th eor y Y hav e th e te nde ncy to b eco me sel f- ful filling propheci es. By that I m ean that pe opl e w ill tend to be hav e a s they are treate d. If a ma nag er tr eats peo ple i n accor dance w ith the ory X , emp loy ees will tend t o behav e as theor y X pr edi cts. C onv er sel y with theor y Y . Thus t he questi on beco m es w hat ki nd of or gani zation s houl d th e m anager an d th e empl oy ees, w orking tog ether , cr ea te, F or th e Kanti an, t he answ er is cl ear . Peopl e sh oul d try to cr eate an or gani zation w her e t he par ticipa nts i n the or gani zation be hav e a s the ory Y woul d pr edi ct. Pe opl e s hould se ek to cr ea te an or gani zation w her e me mb er s dev elop thei r rational an d mor al ca pacities, inclu ding the cap acity to ta ke re spo nsibility . One of the c hief im plicati ons of K ant's et hics i s that it acts as a m oral cr itique of author itar ian hier ar chical or gani zational str uctur es. Pr inciple 2 d eman ds par ticipati on i n some for m by al l th e cor por ate stak ehol der s, es peci ally stockhol der s a nd em ploy ees. A K anti an w oul d m orally obj ect t o a hier ar chi cal str uctur e t hat requires those lower dow n to ca rry out th e or ders of th ose abov e, mor e or less w ithou t q uesti on. Kanti an mor al theory al so r equires w orker par ticipati on: indeed, it requires a vast dem ocr atization of the w ork pl ace. C ertainly, a necess ary condi tion o f BA M321 - 10 - 2004/ 05 Chr is Do wns Un iversity Co lleg e Ch ich ester auto nom y is conse nt g iven und er no n- coer cive an d n on- decep tive condi tions. Consen t al so requires that the indi vidual s i n an or ganization e ndorse the r ules that g overn th em . As a mi nimu m co ndi tion of dem ocr atization, Ka nti an mor al phi loso phy requires th at e ach per son in an or gani zation be r epr ese nted by the stakeh older grou p to w hich h e or sh e b elong s, an d th at t hes e v arious stakeh older grou ps m ust cons ent to t he r ules and pol icies w hich g overn th e or gani zation. This requirem ent for a mor e de mocr atic w ork pl ace i s not pur ely uto pian: i t has so me sup por t in m anag em en t th eor y and in m anag em ent pr acti ce. Teamw ork is al most univer sal ly pr aised, a nd sev eral cor por ati ons h ave end or sed v arieti es of the co nce pt o f participitati ve man agement. L evi Str auss and Si ng apor e Ai rlines , to na me j ust tw o ex ampl es, hav e d em ocr atic w ork places.

I ho pe I hav e co nv inced th e r eader that Kan t's mor al phi losophy has rich im plicati ons f or busi ness pr acti ce. W hen the three for m ulati ons of th e categ orical imper ati ve ar e consi der ed tog ether as a co her ent w hol e, they pr ov ide g uidance to the m anag er , bot h i n ter m s o f neg ati ve i njuncti ons a nd posi tive i deal s. The ne gative injuncti ons pr ohi bit acti ons l ike c ontr act br eaki ng, th eft, dec epti on a nd c oer cion . The p ositive ideal s i nclude a mor e dem ocr atic w ork pl ace and a co mm itment tow ard m eaningful w ork. However Kanti an et hics is not w ithou t its l im itati ons an d ch alleng es. Kant ha d nothi ng to say ab out environment al et hics a nd ha d l ittle un der sta ndi ng of th e su ffer ing of ani mal s an d th us h eld a tr unc ate d view of our obligati on t o ani mals. B ut the biggest chal leng e to the Ka ntian e thic i s that the Ka nti an ethi c i s too de man ding. Let us c onsi der tha t objecti on at g reat er leng th. THE PU RITY OF M OTIVE It i s a c entr al tenet o f K ant's mor al phi loso phy that an acti on is only trul y mor al if it is mor ally moti vated. Truly mor al ac tions cann ot b e co nta m inate d by moti ves of self-inter es t. Si nce the good acts o f ev en the most enl ightene d cor por ati ons ar e al mos t al ways justi fied i n par t on the grounds tha t such acti ons ar e pr ofitable, it ap pear s t hat ev en t he best acti ons o f th e b est cor por ati ons ar e no t tr uly mor al. C onsi der th e following quotati on from J. W . Marriott Jr . ( Milbank, 1 996, p. A1) descr ibing the deci sion of the M arriott Corpor ati on to hi re w elfar e r ecipients. W e're g etting good e mploy ees for the l ong ter m but w e're al so hel ping these co mm uni ties . If we don't ste p up in the se i nner ci ties a nd pr ovide work, they 'll nev er pul l out of it. But i t m akes botto m l ine sens e. I f it didn't w e w oul dn't do i t. BA M321 - 11 - 2004/ 05 Chr is Do wns Un iversity Co lleg e Ch ich ester A str ict Ka nti an coul d n ot cal l M arriott's act o f hiring welfar e recipien ts a g ood act. I n Ka nti an l ang uage, th e ac t w oul d b e done i n confor mi ty w ith duty but not out of duty . But do esn't t hat make K ant's theor y too aust ere to appl y to busi ness ? S everal thi ngs can be sai d in resp onse to t his questi on. W e might say tha t K ant is mistak en ab out r equiring such pur ity of motiv e. Y et ev en i f Ka nt i s w rong about th e n ecessi ty of pure m otivation for an act's bei ng m ora l, he still h as a lo t to offe r the bu sin ess e thicist. W orkin g ou t the im plicati ons o f th e thr ee form ulati ons of the c ateg orical imper ati ve p rov ides a rich ag enda for the bus iness et hicist. H owever, a bi t m ore sh oul d be sai d, especi ally in light o f the fact th at t he g eneral publ ic judg es busi ness from a str ict Kanti an posi tion. In di scussi ng the i ssue, pe opl e s eem to ass ume t hat acti ons t hat en hanc e th e bott om l ine ar e acts of sel f-inter est on the par t of the c orpor ati on. H owever, for pu blicly hel d cor por ati ons an d for par tner shi ps, t his is no t th e cas e. Publ icly hel d cor por ati ons h ave an obl igati on to make a pr ofit base d on t hei r char ter s of incor por ati on, l egal obligati ons t o shar eh older s, an d a n implied contr act w ith th e p ubl ic. It w oul d n ot be str etching a p oint too far to say that the ma nag er s o f a publ icly hel d cor por ati on h ave pr omi sed to str ive for pr ofits. If th at is so , th e p ositio n of the M arriott Cor poration is a m oral o ne, even for the str ict Kan tian. The Marriott C orpor ati on i s hon or ing its obl igati on to r eal ize pr ofits a nd i ts obl igati on o f be ne fice nce. Thus , Kan t's i nsiste nce tha t an acti on must be do ne f rom a truly mor al motive nee d not und er cut acts of co rpor ate ben eficenc e t hat also c ontr ibut e t o th e b ottom line. So far all w e hav e sho wn i s that Ka nt's i nsistence on the pur ity of a mor al moti ve has no t mad e his theor y irrelevant to b usiness ethi cs. But per haps his insistence on th e p urity o f the mor al mo tive ha s a p ositive contr ibuti on to make to busi ness e thics and is no t si mply a b arrier to be ov er com e. Per haps focusi ng on issues ot her tha n pr ofits, suc h as me ani ng ful w ork for em ploy ees, a de mocr ati c w ork pl ace, n on- dec epti ve a dvertising, and a n on- co er cive relationshi p w ith suppl iers w ill actual ly enha nce th e b otto m l ine. M any man agement th eor ists ur ge busi ness es t o al ways focus o n th e b ottom line. However, per ha ps p aradox ically, pr of its c an be e nhance d if w e do not focus so ex clusi vely on the botto m l ine. To put thi s in m ore K anti an t erm s, per ha ps prof its w ill b e e nhanced if the m ana ge r focuses o n re sp ectin g th e hu m anity in the per son of all th e co rpor ate s take hol ders. Per haps w e shoul d v iew pr of its as a c onseq uence of good busi ness pr ac tices rather than as the goal of business… BA M321 - 12 - 2004/ 05 Chr is Do wns Un iversity Co lleg e Ch ich ester Refer enc es Bow ie, N .E. 1 999 : Busi ness Et hics: A Ka ntian Perspec tive , Ox ford: Blackw ell Publ isher s. Case, J. 19 95: Open Bo ok Ma na ge ment, New Yo rk: Ha rp er Co llin s Publ isher s. Kant, I. 196 3: W hat is enl ighten me nt ( 1784) . In L. W hite B eck ( ed. a nd tr ans.) On Histor y. Trans , In diana polis: The B obbs Merrill Com pany . Kant, I. 199 0: Foun dati ons o f th e M etaphysi cs of M orals (1785) . T ran s. by Lew is W hite B eck, N ew York: M acmi llan P ublishing C ompa ny. Kant, I. 199 4: The m etaphysi cs of m oral: The m etaphysi cal pr inciples of vi rtue (1797) . In I . Ka nt Ethical P hilo sop hy 2n d e dn. T rans. by Ja mes w . El lington, Indi anap olis/C am br idge, M A: H ack ett Publ ishing C ompa ny. Kor sgaar d, C . 199 6: Creati ng the Ki ngdom of Ends , Ne w Yo rk: Ca mb rid ge Univ ersit y Press. McGr eg or , D . 196 0: Th e H uman Si de of Ent erprise , Ne w Yo rk: McGr aw Hill Book C ompany . Millbank, D . 1996 : H iring w elfar e p eopl e, h otel chai n finds , is to ug h but re ward ing. The W all S treet Jo ur nal , Octo ber 31. BA M321 - 13 - 2004/ 05 Chr is Do wns The author has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate.The author has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate.