Lopez 1

“Can an Organization Be Conceived as a Person?”

Vanessa Lopez

South Texas College

ORGL-4631-V05-Capstone I

Dr. Patricia Blanco

November 4, 2020
 Lopez 2

“Can an Organization Be Conceived as a Person?”

Many philosophers have different opinions whether a productive organization such a

corporation, or a business, or a state can be conceived as a person. Plato believed that an ideal

state or a city illuminates the nature of a just soul. Plato used the dialogue of his Republic to

argue that a state is the larger sole of the community, and its divisions correspond to divisions of

an individual soul. According to Plato, an ideal state had three major classes in a community.

These classes consisted of: producers (such as artisans and farmers); auxiliaries (such as

soldiers) who defend the state; and guardians (such as government and philosophers) to govern

the state and its cities (Jerome, pg. 240). Every class in a state was happy with whatever its role

was, and individual happiness did not matter but the happiness of the state as a whole. Judging

by Plato’s philosophical thoughts, it makes sense to conceive an organization as a person. For

instance, just like a state has many divisions, so do corporations have many divisions ranging

from sales, marketing, finance, and among others.

As for Aristotle, he argues that a state is a community of persons, and every person plays

a certain role and that role is good. And just like a community, a state has a role to play, and that

role is good. Aristotle believed a state existed to allow people to live well and not to allow

people to live. He goes on to argue that a state is the highest of all communities and it is not an

ordinary community, but rather a single supreme organization (Kaptein, pg. 305). Aristotle

believed a state is a natural development of several stages. The first stage was a family, several

united families formed a village, and with a village is a single community large enough and

perfect to form a self-sufficient state. To build a state on perfect lines, three elements were very

essential: justice, practical organization, and fellowship. Therefore, the state required supremacy
 Lopez 3

of rule of law to habituate people to do what is good. Deriving an opinion from Aristotle’s

thoughts, an organization can be perceived to be a person. This is because Aristotle believed a

state is a “Political Koimonia”, which is an association between people to form one single state

for the sake of healthier and perfect life.

Hobbes presented his thoughts as the first philosopher to provide knowledge of

citizenship, sovereignty, and justice through his “Leviathan (1651)” work (Wallis, pg. 72).

Hobbes claimed that the pure state of nature creates inequalities to the point that humans live in

violence or in the fear of loss because this state is without government. As such, every human

has a natural right to do anything that pleases one’s own life, and there is neither injustice nor

peace in the absence of law. The right of each person to all things would create a serious conflict,

particularly if there are scarce resources, as there will be a state of war. In order to achieve

productivity, peace, and stability in this state of nature, Hobbes argued that people will

eventually create a covenant to obey a single authority, a government. This social contract

required people to transfer their rights to the government that in turn provided common

protection and judge what is good and wrong. Hobbes goes on to describe a state as a single

political entity that depicts the human body that has many organs acting as one. From Hobbes’s

ideology, an organization is more of a person because it depicts human characteristics.

On the other hand, Kant argued that a state in accordance with the laws of nature

constrained a person’s choice. His major concern was how a choice of a person was determined

by another person in government. Such actions violated the moral laws: where a person was free

to enjoy happiness or any other type of empirical good without being constrained (Gallie, pg.

21). Kant believed individual actions were free from being constrained by another person’s

choice. He therefore rejected the basis of creating a state, where human beings gave up their
 Lopez 4

individual choices to the government. He argued that the basis of creating a state power cannot

be based on the welfare of the citizens. Moreover, the conception of individual happiness for

every citizen cannot be legitimately imposed through a state. Based on Kant’s opinion, it would

be wrong to conceive an institution as a person. Kant believed the head of an institution treated

people like children, assuming they never knew what is truly harmful or useful to themselves.

Mill believed that the foundations of morals were based on utilitarian principle. He

argued that the overall human principle was based on the consequences of their actions.

Therefore, Mill was less attentive to ethical sentiments of various moral principles that existed

before him but rather focused on the consequences of human actions. Moreover, he applied

articulation to defense liberalism and press for liberal reforms. He believed the formation of a

government was necessary but it would be incompetent if it was not governed by the most

experienced, skilled, and educate despite whether they were administrative officials, elected

representatives, or citizens themselves. However, Mill noted the government wat not an advocate

for the common good because the productive class was turned into a condition of dependence,

insecurity, and uncertainty by the state. It is therefore appropriate to say that an institution cannot

be perceived as a person. Based on Mill’s thoughts, this would be the case because he believed in

individual self-realization than he did in dissemination of administrative and political power.

As for the Nietzsche, he criticized the moral frameworks before and after him. He

severely disapproved of morality and Christianity for failing to acknowledge fate, its divinity, its

adversity, and its obstacles. Moreover, Nietzsche emphasized his aversion towards the

foundations of state and mainly devoted to individual self-creation and personal emancipation

Remhof, pg. 234). For him, he was a predecessor of a philosophy of difference, dispersion, and

disparity, a philosophy that undermines the existence of organizations such as state governments,
 Lopez 5

churches, and others. Nietzsche dissolves the stability and unity demanded by the government

and privileges freedom as a dispersion or a change. Based on these reasons, an institution cannot

be conceived as a person. Nietzsche fails to acknowledge any figure of authority, be it the

authority of states and government, or the authority of God, or the authority of moral tradition. In

fact, he believed that no institutionalized organization should exist.

 Lopez 6

Work cited

Gallie, Walter B. "Kant's View of Reason in Politics." Philosophy 54.207 (2013): 19-33.

Jerome, Neu. "Plato's analogy of state and individual: The Republic and the organic theory of the

state." Philosophy 46.177 (2011): 238-254.

Kaptein, Muel. "When organizations are too good: Applying Aristotle's doctrine of the mean to

the corporate ethical virtues model." Business Ethics: A European Review 26.3 (2017): 300-311.

Remhof, Justin. "Nietzsche's Conception of Truth: Correspondence, Coherence, or Pragmatist?"

Journal of Nietzsche Studies 46.2 (2015): 229-238.

Wallis, J. J. (2015). Rules, organizations, and governments. Atlantic Economic Journal, 43(1),

69-86.