Imperfect Duties of Management: The

Ethical Norm of Managerial Decisions

Richard M. Robinson
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/imperfect-duties-of-management-the-ethical-norm-of-
managerial-decisions-richard-m-robinson/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Sales and Distribution Management Decisions Strategies

and Cases 6th Edition Richard R. Still

https://textbookfull.com/product/sales-and-distribution-
management-decisions-strategies-and-cases-6th-edition-richard-r-
still/

Managerial Accounting: The Cornerstone of Business

Decision-Making 7th Edition Maryanne M. Mowen

https://textbookfull.com/product/managerial-accounting-the-
cornerstone-of-business-decision-making-7th-edition-maryanne-m-
mowen/

Mafia Casanova 1st Edition M. Robinson

https://textbookfull.com/product/mafia-casanova-1st-edition-m-
robinson/

Plato s Psychology T M Robinson

https://textbookfull.com/product/plato-s-psychology-t-m-robinson/
The Rise of Managerial Bureaucracy Lorenzo Castellani

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-rise-of-managerial-
bureaucracy-lorenzo-castellani/

Management across Cultures Developing Global

Competencies 3rd Edition Richard M. Steers

https://textbookfull.com/product/management-across-cultures-
developing-global-competencies-3rd-edition-richard-m-steers/

The Mathematics of Politics Second Edition Robinson

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-mathematics-of-politics-
second-edition-robinson/

Handbook of surface plasmon resonance Richard B M

Schasfoort

https://textbookfull.com/product/handbook-of-surface-plasmon-
resonance-richard-b-m-schasfoort/

Project Management A Managerial Approach Jack R.

Meredith

https://textbookfull.com/product/project-management-a-managerial-
approach-jack-r-meredith/
Richard M. Robinson

Imperfect Duties of
Management
The Ethical Norm of
Managerial Decisions
Imperfect Duties of Management
 Richard M. Robinson

Imperfect Duties
of Management
The Ethical Norm of Managerial Decisions
Richard M. Robinson
Business Administration
SUNY Fredonia
Fredonia, NY, USA

ISBN 978-3-319-99791-9 ISBN 978-3-319-99792-6 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99792-6

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018953103

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2019
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To my spouse Dr. MaryAnn Robinson, and to my colleague
Prof. Marwan ElNasser, both of whom provided
great patience and inspiration.
 Preface

Several decades ago in a senior level economics course, I first encoun-

tered the nexus-of-contracts theory of the firm. At the same time in an
advanced philosophy course, I studied Kantian notions of duty. In this
“duty” context, the nexus-of-contracts theory appeared incomplete as
a description of managerial motivations and actions. It took these “sev-
eral decades” to articulate the notions of the norm of imperfect duty
specified in this monograph. I suspect that the nexus-of-duty theory of
the firm is the ultimate completion of Ronald Coase’s (1937) contract
vision. This is the completion attempted here.
Please note that the final chapter of this monograph also completes a
long-term effort to reform Jensen and Meckling’s (1976) seminal con-
tribution concerning managerial perquisites. That contribution argued
that managerial welfare (utility) maximization should replace the notion
of shareholder wealthmaximization as the goal of the corporation. When
considerations of duty are added to this perquisite examination, the
resulting analysis is much more robust. That “duty” extension is pro-
vided here as an application of the nexus of imperfectdutymodel.
This nexus of imperfect duty approach is, by the nature of the sub-
ject, Kantian. I would be remiss if I did not mention and thank Prof.
Mark D. White (CUNY) as an inspiration for his considerable efforts
to bring Kantian philosophy into economic analysis. He is the leader of
these important efforts of academicians. I suspect many more economists
and business academicians will be engaged in these Kantian exegeses.

vii
viii    Preface

For example, their possibilities for new analyses in microeconomics and

welfare economics pose most interesting frontiers.
I very much thank Dr. MaryAnn Robinson for her intellectual help
and patience with my slow methodical tempo. I also thank my colleague
Dr. Nina Shah for her needed organized arguments that helped me
focus, especially on the environmental material of Chapter 5.

Fredonia, NY, USA Richard M. Robinson

July 2018

References
Coase, Ronald H. 1937. “The Nature of the Firm.” Economica 4 (November):
386–405.
Jensen, Michael C., and William H. Meckling. 1976. “Theory of the Firm:
Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure.” Journal of
Financial Economics 3 (October): 305–360.
 Contents

1 Introduction: The Nexus of Imperfect Duty

and the Ethical Norm 1

2 Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Moral Duties 11

3 The Nexus of Managerial Imperfect Duty

and Its Conceptual Advantages 39

4 Relations of Virtue 65

5 Reasoned Managerial Discourse 89

6 Due Diligence and the Profit Motive:

Perfect or Imperfect Duty? 129

7 Managers, Virtues, and Dispositions? 151

8 Fair Negotiations 173

ix
x    Contents

9 Management Perquisites and Imperfect Duty 205

References 223

Index 237
 List of Figures

Chapter 6
Fig. 1 The expected profit stream 132
Chapter 9
Fig. 1 Perquisites and market value of equity 207
Fig. 2 Capital structure 210
Fig. 3 Liquidity effects 212
Fig. 4 Perquisites and the market value of equity 220

xi
 List of Tables

Chapter 6
Table 1 Value of firm’s assets in two-state future 136
Table 2 Value of firm’s debt payment in two-state future 136
Table 3 Value of firm’s equity in two-state future 137

xiii
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction: The Nexus of Imperfect Duty

and the Ethical Norm

1  The Ethical Norm in Economics and the Theory

of the Firm

Ethical norms pose our aspirations. We often pose them as aspirational

virtues for the individual, and we also apply them as standards for our
society. We use our moral norms to analyze our social institutions, to
perceive their defects and their possible paths of improvements. For
example, the classical economics of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations
(1776), David Ricardo’s On the Principles of Political Economy (1817),
Thomas Malthus’ Essay on the Principle of Population (1826), and John
Stuart Mill’s The Principles of Political Economy (1848) argued a social
norm against government interference in the economy. The neoclassical
economics of Alfred Marshall’s Principles of Economics (1890) empha-
sized the functioning of markets and a “price theory” for rationing soci-
ety’s resources in production and consumption. This also posed a social
norm. We can claim this because at its heart, neoclassical economics
emphasized individual “utility maximization” for explaining individual-
istic behaviors.1 That implicitly feeds the philosophy of the individual’s
“freedom to choose.”2
The neoclassical economic model also posed societal norms for gov-
ernmental interference when certain market failures occurred, failures
such as negative externalities (pollution) or monopolies. Neoclassical
economics also posed the norm of the perfectly competitive market, the
perfectly competitive firm, and regulated monopoly. The efficiencies of

© The Author(s) 2019 1

R. M. Robinson, Imperfect Duties of Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99792-6_1
2 R. M. ROBINSON

each vision were analyzed, but the perfect competition model seldom
applies empirically to any particular industry, and neither does the model
of monopoly.3 The two extremes are analyzed in economics, and we do
pose the competitive model as having moral dimensions applicable to
aspects of social efficiency.
The neoclassical analysis concerned free individuals getting the maxi-
mum from their efforts within resource constraints. The combination of
individuals being free from government interference, plus the neoclassi-
cal notion of “economic efficiency,” were emphasized.4
This perfect competition model of neoclassical economics extends
from the foundation of classical economics as reviewed above. It poses
the following as interrelated advantages of competitive markets:

• The Freedom Advantage: This advantage depends on individu-

als being free to move to the occupation they wish and producers
being free to enter markets when they perceive possible advantages.
• The Efficiency Advantage: Through the market process, the com-
petitive firm was perceived as assuring that goods are produced at
minimum average cost including a minimum acceptable return to
the producers which is just enough so that they keep producing
in that market. Competition also was perceived as assuring a min-
imum acceptable distribution to employees, i.e., enough to keep
them likewise engaged. Consumers were then able to purchase at
these minimum-competitive prices. This provides a resource-ra-
tioning system with a type of economic efficiency that assures that
the goods society desires are provided at minimum social costs. But
this assumes that all costs of production are internalized to the pro-
duction process, i.e., that there are no negative externalities such as
pollution.5
• The Social Welfare Advantage: Assuming that social welfare can be
measured as the sum of all individual utility levels, then the com-
petitive market process (without externalities) maximizes social wel-
fare. By this, it is meant that resources are rationed by the “market
price system” so that consumers get the goods they desire at a min-
imum cost, and employees move to their preferred occupation at an
acceptable compensation.6

It must be emphasized that the three categories of advantages are consid-

ered interrelated in that social welfare maximization fails without either
 1 INTRODUCTION: THE NEXUS OF IMPERFECT … 3

freedom or efficiency. Efficiency was also considered as not achievable

without freedom to move from one market to another. In this sense,
social welfare followed from freedom and efficiency in competitive pro-
duction. In a general sense, it should be obvious that there exist some
ethical implications posed by the neoclassical competitive economic
model, but as such these implications are in need of exploration and clear
specification.
The neoclassical model depends on individuals being egoistic utility
maximizers as consumers and producers. It also depends on producers
being profit maximizers.7 People, of course, might and probably do have
interrelated preferences in that what they prefer in an individual setting
might differ from what they prefer in a group setting, i.e., your happiness
may depend on the well-being of many others. The existence of interre-
lated preferences implies that competitive markets might need collective
regulation to be social welfare maximizing.8 For example, some degree
of income redistribution might be warranted.
Markets might also not be perfectly competitive. Considering this,
the neoclassical firm is generally juxtaposed against monopoly for which
production is lower and market price higher. Consumers are therefore
deprived as compared to competition. In this sense, compared with
a monopoly the competitive model poses a norm, a sort of minimalist
moral model of an economic system that serves social welfare.
The neoclassical competitive model does have some empirical capa-
bility for describing some markets, such as some agricultural markets. It
can also indicate the defects of monopoly and pose regulatory controls to
counteract these defects. The point is that the norm posed by the neo-
classical model of perfect competition allows us to analyze the situation
of monopoly and to perceive its defects. This norm may be abstract and
only pose society’s aspirations for an economy, but it allows analysis of
the social shortcomings of deviations from perfect competition, and it
provides directions for possible remedies. This norm is not intended to
be entirely realistic, but to give directions for analysis and social aspira-
tions. The same is true for our moral norms such as those against busi-
ness fraud. We know the norm is not a perfectly accurate description of
society, but it allows analysis of unacceptable behavior and its negative
effects on society.
Market philosophers have long argued about “the Adam Smith prob-
lem,” i.e., the seemingly apparent contradiction between Adam Smith’s
ethical philosophy as expressed in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759),
4 R. M. ROBINSON

and the egoistic agent of the invisible hand as expressed in Wealth of

Nations (1776). In attempting to resolve this apparent conflict, Samuel
Fleischacker (2004, p. 91) argued that “human beings can pursue even
their individual interests together, that even society without benevo-
lence need not be a hostile society, that economic exchange, even among
entirely self-interested people is not a zero-sum game.” More recently,
Mark White (2011, pp. 114–115) argued that in the Wealth of Nations,
Smith did not make an argument in favor of egoism, although he did
show that pursuit of self-interest might be sufficient for a hypothetical
economic flourishing. Smith only argued that because agents knew their
own self-interests, the economic philosophy of mercantilism was ineffi-
cient by its nature, i.e., that markets can operate based on self-­interest,
not that they strictly should operate in this way. The moral behavior of
participants still determines whether markets are hostile to society’s
interests and also the extent of this hostility.
The neoclassical economic model appears to pose individuals as ego-
istic utility and profit maximizers without altruistic or other ethical
motives. The “other ethical motives” were not introduced because the
classical and neoclassical authors pursued analyses of a narrow notion
of efficiency, one that is considerably extended in this monograph. This
“extension” is explored and illustrated in Chapters 8 and 9.
As an addition to the neoclassical view, however, the nexus of con-
tracts theory of the firm was offered by Coase (1937) and developed
by Alchian and Demsetz (1972), and Jensen and Meckling (1976) (See
Chapter 3). This theory views management as pursuing a set of inter-
locking perfect duties (obligations that must be either performed, or
in some cases, actions that must be avoided). This theory poses a set of
perfect ethical duties. It has been considerably pursued and developed in
the academic literature. This monograph, however, extends this model of
perfect duties to a more complete view, one inclusive of imperfect duties.
It shows that it is the imperfect duties of management that (a) forms the
important moral dimensions of management and (b) forms the foun-
dation for the firm’s success or failure and of its future development.
This complete view of managerial duty extends the neoclassical theory
and is certainly necessary for the appropriate examination of social wel-
fare implications of competitive markets. These, however, are claims that
must be substantiated in the following chapters. To do so requires the
foundation of an ethical philosophy based on individual autonomy and
duty motivated by the pursuit of a moral community. Such a philosophy
 1 INTRODUCTION: THE NEXUS OF IMPERFECT … 5

also should support our theory of competitive markets. Kantian ethical

philosophy provides this foundation.

2  The Nexus of Duty

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) posed an ethical-philosophical process
for (a) forming personal moral maxims and (b) forming society’s moral
maxims (See Kant, 1785, 1797, and Chapter 2). Kant argued that this
process described common thinking about how our society’s moral max-
ims are formed. From these maxims, duties follow. As is shown in this
monograph, these pose aspirational norms applicable for analysis of moral
deficiencies and advantages in management, and for forming a theory of
the firm with strong moral implications. That is how this Kantian-duty
philosophy is used here.
This monograph is built upon three Journal of Business Ethics arti-
cles: Robinson (2016b, 2017, 2018). They pose a nexus of managerial
duties, both perfect duties and imperfect duties (defined in Chapter 3).
This nexus of duties is an extension of the nexus-of-contracts theory
reviewed in Chapter 3. The nexus-of-contracts is essentially a collection
of perfect managerial duties. This monograph concerns, however, the
nexus of imperfect duties of management, i.e., those volitional attitudes
and actions in pursuit of a moral purpose. It is argued in this mon-
ograph that this latter nexus describes what should be most of man-
agement’s efforts that generate what we should consider as business
efficiency. These norms for managerial efforts are categorized into three
areas: (i) development of the moral management team, (ii) reasoned dis-
course with all relevant stakeholders, and (iii) what should be the rou-
tine due-diligence efforts of management. By these categorizations, we
achieve clearer understandings of their importance and their interactions.
For example, we explore the role of reasoned discourse in leadership
for developing the moral managerial community. This in turn implies
an ingrained character for pursuit of managerial due diligence. By this
“ingrained character” we mean dispositions to pursue duty—both per-
fect and imperfect—rather than viewing due diligence as a set of onerous
obligations. This essentially reduces these dispositions to virtues as in a
virtue ethics approach.
The neoclassical theory of the firm, and its profit maximization
motive, was built upon single-period decisions under certainty. The con-
sequent finance exegeses extended this model into multi-period decisions
6 R. M. ROBINSON

under uncertainty (See Fama and Miller, 1971; Copeland and Weston,
1983). This extension changes the profit motive into that of Shareholder
Wealth Maximization (SWM). Jensen (2002) argued the benefits of
envisioning the maximization of a single-value function of numerous
inputs, i.e., SWM. The mathematical analytical presentation of this pro-
cess exhibits real advantages for clarity and consequent understanding.
It is valuable for capital structure decisions, dividend distribution deci-
sions, capital budgeting decisions, working capital management, and
in general deciding the levels of inputs. One can also envision an SWM
analysis for managerial imperfect duties as inputs, i.e., a marginalist solu-
tion for optimal inputs of imperfect duties. Unlike the much simpler
financial decisions (capital structure, capital budgeting, dividends, and
working capital), any analysis of the imperfect duties of management is
much more complex, and a mathematical SWM approach would appear
to be vast overkill. Clarity would not be derived from such an approach.
The term “shareholder wealth pursuit” appears to the author to be more
appropriate than SWM. That “pursuit” term is therefore utilized in this
monograph rather than “shareholder wealth maximization.”
In the latter chapters, two important analyses are presented as illus-
trations of the nexus of imperfect duty approach. The imperfect duty
conception is shown to particularly apply to managerial perquisites, espe-
cially when these are broadly characterized into excessive managerial
risk aversion in capital structure decisions, excessive liquidity levels, and
“pet project” selections. This is shown to be a considerable extension
of Jensen and Meckling (1976). As such, it offers a substantial contri-
bution, thereby demonstrating the robustness of the nexus of imperfect
duty model.
The second illustration uses the nexus model to form a theory of
stakeholder relations, i.e., a theory of fair negotiations applicable to man-
agerial relations with stakeholders. Fair negotiations are shown to be a
natural subset of the nexus theory. Maxims applicable for these stake-
holder negotiations are suggested. This concept of fair negotiation with
stakeholders is shown to be the moral alternative to paternalistic stake-
holder-balance theory. This also is a substantial contribution.
In general, the purpose of this monograph is to explain the nexus
of imperfect duty approach to management theory. It poses a particu-
larly moral theory of management; it poses the ethical norm that effec-
tively allows a moral analysis of management. It also poses direction to
 1 INTRODUCTION: THE NEXUS OF IMPERFECT … 7

managerial development via the reinforcement mechanisms suggested in

Chapters 4 and 7.
Because this nexus-of-imperfect-duty view of management is likely to
be perceived as an extension of the nexus-of-contracts theory, and this
latter theory is seen as being based on empirical observation, the for-
mer may also be judged as an empirically based model. In fact, the nex-
us-of-imperfect-duty model has empirical content. As examples, many
managers do have ingrained dispositions toward due diligence, disposi-
tions to not exploit perquisites, and dispositions to attempt to develop
a moral managerial team. But the model offered by this monograph is
intended to be an aspirational norm that gives direction to analysis and
the development of management theory. Nobody should discard this
theory because they observe “real world managers” as not conforming.
Keep in mind that the neoclassical economic model is not discarded
because we seldom observe perfectly competitive markets. That model is
used to analyze the defects of less-than-competitive markets.
The nexus of imperfect managerial duty presents a new theory of the
firm, or what might be a better phrasing, a new extension of the existing
theory. It is not overly bold to argue that it properly places ethics at the
heart of the theory of the firm. This has been wanting since the develop-
ment of the neoclassical theory.

3   Philosophers, Business Ethics, and the Organization

of This Monograph

Academicians who contribute to the field of business ethics tend to have

either a Ph.D. in the academic subject of philosophy, or a Ph.D. in the
subject of economics or sometimes in management. The former group
tends to know the traditional areas of virtue ethics and Kantian ethics,
but they often appear to have difficulties knowing business as a rather
complex academic subject, i.e., the problems to which the ethical phi-
losophy should be applied. The analyses from the pure philosophers
therefore often tend to be tepid and of lower interest. Without sufficient
academic philosophical background, however, a Ph.D. in economics or
management might know the problems, but not be able to focus on sat-
isfactory ethical solutions.
There are few academicians studying business ethics who com-
bine knowledge of economics and business theory with a preparatory
8 R. M. ROBINSON

background in philosophy so as to be able to effectively contribute.

There exists a few, and they do advance the subject, thereby, one hopes,
shaping the future business world through management education. I ear-
nestly intend and hope this monograph to offer a contribution of this
sort. Imperfect duty is the essence of management. Clarity as to this
nexus provides an understanding of management without which a degree
of foggy confusion reigns.
Given the above suggestion of the necessity of the combination of a
philosophical-ethical foundation with a knowledgeable approach to the
managerial problems of our business age, this monograph’s organiza-
tion begins with a chapter that reviews the Kantian philosophy of duty.
Chapters 3 through 6 then fully establish the managerial nexus of imper-
fect duty, i.e., the establishment of the moral managerial community and
team, the necessity of reasoned managerial discourse, and the pursuit of
managerial due diligence.
Chapter 7 explores the processes necessary to develop dispositions
toward imperfect duty as ingrained character and as applied to the man-
agerial team. Chapter 8 applies this imperfect duty approach to the sub-
ject of fairness in negotiation as the ethical alternative to paternalistic
stakeholder-balancing managerial decrees.
The final chapter is also an application of the nexus theory, i.e., the
application to managerial perquisite consumption. In this subject, the
nexus approach facilitates a fuller understanding of the nature of perqui-
sites and their management.

Notes
1. See Ferguson (1972, Chapters 1 and 2), for the utility maximization the-
ory of the consumer. Also see Henderson and Quandt (1958, Chapter 2).
2. Friedman and Friedman 1980, titled their popular book Free to Choose:
A Personal Statement as well as their popular television series as based on
classical and neoclassical economic notions of personal freedom and market
efficiency.
3. We do have regulated monopolies and some other regulated industries
such as those in some agricultural markets that are highly competitive.
4. The neoclassical theory of economic efficiency was based on “the law of
diminishing returns,” and marginalist analysis.
5. See Henderson and Quandt (1958) and Ferguson (1972).
6. See Henderson and Quandt (1958, Chapter 7) and Ferguson (1972,
Chapter 16) for reviews of welfare economics.
 1 INTRODUCTION: THE NEXUS OF IMPERFECT … 9

7. In a multi-period setting with risk considerations, the profit motive

changes to a wealth consideration. See Copeland and Weston (1983, pp.
21–24).
8. See Samuelson (1974, Chapter 8).

References
Alchian, Arman A., and Harold Demsetz. 1972. “Production, Information
Costs, and Economic Organization.” American Economic Review 62
(December): 777–795.
Coase, Ronald H. 1937. “The Nature of the Firm.” Economica 4 (November):
386–405.
Copeland, Thomas E., and J. Fred Weston. 1983. Financial Theory and
Corporate Policy. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fama, Eugene and Merton Miller. 1971. The Theory of Finance. Dryden Press,
Hinsdale, IL.
Ferguson, C. E. 1972. Microeconomic Theory. 3rd ed. Homewood, IL: Richard
D. Irwin.
Fleischacker, Samuel. 2004. On Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations: A Philosophical
Companion. Princeton University Press, Princeton. NJ.
Henderson, James M., and Richard E. Quandt. 1958. Microeconomic Theory: A
Mathematical Approach. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Jensen, Michael C. 2002. “Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the
Corporate Objective Function.” Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (2): 127–138.
Jensen, Michael C., and William H. Meckling. 1976. “Theory of the Firm:
Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure.” Journal of
Financial Economics 3 (October): 305–360.
Kant, Immanuel. 1785. “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals.”
In Basic Writings of Kant, edited by Allen W. Wood, The Modern Library
Classics. New York: The Modern Library.
Kant, Immanuel. 1797. The Metaphysics of Morals, edited by Mary Gregor.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Malthus, Thomas. 1826. Essay on the Principle of Population, J. Johnson,
London, UK.
Marshall, Alfred. 1890. Principles of Economics. Prometheus Books, London, UK.
Mill, John Stuart. 1848. The Principles of Political Economy. John W. Parker.
London, UK.
Ricardo, David. 1817. On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, Johm
Murray, London, UK.
Robinson, Richard. 2016. “Friendships of Virtue, Pursuit of the Moral
Community, and the Ends of Business.” Journal of Business Ethics, published
10 R. M. ROBINSON

online, Open Access, August 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100551-016-

3277-5. In print, August 2018, 151(1): 117–126.
Robinson, Richard. 2017. “The Management Nexus of Imperfect Duty: Kantian
Views of Friendship, Discourse and Due Diligence.” Journal of Business
Ethics, published online, Open Access, August 22. Awaiting print assignment.
Robinson, Richard, and Nina Shah. 2018. “Business’ Environmental Obligations
and Reasoned Public Discourse: A Kantian Foundation for Analysis.” Journal
of Business Ethics, published online, Open Access, February 3. Awaiting print
assignment.
Samuelson, Paul Anthony. 1974. Foundations of Economic Analysis. New York,
NY: Antheneum.
Smith, Adam. 1759 [1982]. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Edited by D. D.
Raphael and A. L. Macfie. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
Smith, Adam. 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of
Nations, reprinted by Clarendon Press, 1996.
White, Mark D. 2011. Kantian Ethics and Economics. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
 CHAPTER 2

Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Moral

Duties

1   Product of Enlightenment Philosophy

Immanuel Kant’s (1724–1804) ethical philosophy is best viewed as part
of a culmination of an age of discovery and progress. The historical
period termed the “European Enlightenment,” or as it is often called the
“Age of Reason,” is a seventeenth-century through eighteenth-century
phenomenon that affected all aspects of European life. It followed the
“scientific revolution” of the fifteenth through seventeenth centuries, an
age of significant scientific discoveries:

• Galileo (1564–1642) discovered some principles of gravitation, and

also by applying the telescope to observations of the solar system,
he discovered the moons of Jupiter and the rings of Saturn,
• Copernicus (1473–1543) established that the sun is at the center of
the solar system,
• Newton (1642–1727), established the principles of light compo-
sition, the elliptical orbits of the planets around the sun as based
on the principles of gravitation, the principle of the conservation of
energy, and principles of motion.

During this historical period, the first major modern advances in

philosophy also occurred, the first advances since the Scholastic Era of
the Middle Ages.

© The Author(s) 2019 11

R. M. Robinson, Imperfect Duties of Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99792-6_2
12 R. M. ROBINSON

• René Descartes (1596–1650) not only reestablished physics with

a mathematical foundation (as with some ancient Greek physicists
such as Archimedes), but also articulated the methods for how we
establish knowledge and judge what is real.
• Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704)
explored the social contract as the basis for establishing liberty and
equality.
• David Hume (1711–1776) exposed the possible limitations of rea-
son for supporting the judgments we do make. He argued that
emotion channeled our logical faculties into supporting sympa-
thy-oriented moral judgments.

This Enlightenment period is often contrasted with the European

“Middle Ages” that supposedly exhibited superstition and irrationality.
The German philosopher Immanuel Kant was one of the last and the
greatest of the Enlightenment philosophers. It is this movement, or age,
that established the foundations of modern Western philosophy, espe-
cially in ethics. It was a philosophical era that justified democracy and the
primacy of the common person.
Kant’s influence on this Enlightenment era of Western civilization can
hardly be overestimated. As such, he is one of the major figures in his-
tory. He sought to restore ethics to a non-religious foundation of logical
reflection as in the Greek philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. Given the
religious conflicts and wars in Europe that occurred in the three centu-
ries prior to Kant, he saw this non-religious foundation as necessary for
human advancement particularly in the context of the democratic polit-
ical movements of his era. It should be noted that Kant was a deeply
religious man who did not seek to force his religious notions on others.1
Kant’s moral philosophy is spread among several significant works which
include Critique of Pure Reason (1781, 1787), Critique of Practical
Reason (1788), Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), The
Metaphysics of Morals (1797), Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone
(1793), and several others.
Kant (1781, 1787) deals with the possibility of “metaphysics, i.e.,
“the philosophical knowledge that transcends the boundaries of experi-
ence,” which claims to be built upon the “synthetic a priori.” This latter
concept means that the autonomous reasoning individual is capable of
recognizing the necessary truths that are not built on empirical evidence,
for example, mathematical proofs built from generally acknowledged
 2 KANT’S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE AND MORAL DUTIES 13

axioms. The ability to form the synthetic a priori principle or idea creates
the ability to use practical reason to generate broad principles of conduct
that Kant called “the autonomy of the will.” This reasoning ability gen-
erates the dignity of all thinking persons. From this notion of reflective
reasoning, Kantian ethics follow (See Allison, 1995).
Kant’s transcendent metaphysics, plus the human autonomy that is
based on everyone’s reasoning capability, leads to his categorical imper-
ative (presented in the next section), and that implies duties some of
which bind unconditionally, and some of which are volitional. From the
“autonomous will,” people have dignity and “ends in themselves.” From
these notions, Kant poses a theoretical “kingdom of ends,” where each
person respects each other’s universalizing wills and acts on those personal
maxims you would have everyone act on (See Downie, 1995). It is the pur-
suit of this theoretical kingdom, a union of people pursuing the moral
maxims they legislate for themselves that provides moral motivation.
(Much more is explained about moral motivation in Sect. 3.)
The late eighteenth century was an age of budding democracy
when the common populace reasoned for itself. This reasoning also
posed duties for this populace. In Kant’s often cited Answer to the
Question: What is Enlightenment? (1784, 8: 36 and 8: 37), we might
perceive a notion of duty:

Enlightenment is man’s exit from his self-incurred minority. Minority is

the incapacity to use one’s intelligence without the guidance of another.
Such minority is self-incurred if it is not caused by lack of intelligence,
but by lack of determination and courage to use one’s intelligence with-
out being guided by another. “Have the courage to use your own intelli-
gence!” is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.
All that is required for this enlightenment is freedom; and particularly
the least harmful of all that may be called freedom, namely, the freedom
for man to make public use of his reason in all matters. (Underline added)

In this context, Kant’s passage begs certain questions concerning duty:

1. Do we have a duty to be courageous in using one’s intelligence

autonomously, i.e., without the guidance of another?
2. Do we have a duty to exercise our freedom to make public use of
reason, and if so, in what context? Note that above, Kant stated “in
all matters.”
14 R. M. ROBINSON

Both the above questions should be answered in the affirmative as

explained in this monograph. These duties may extend to management
and free-market interactions.
As stated above, the Enlightenment formed the basis of modern
Western philosophy. The leading doctrines of the Enlightenment age
were2:

1. Reason is mankind’s central capacity. It enables people to think and

act accordingly.

This places the emphasis on the individual, a principle of Western phi-

losophy. People are not viewed as mere contributors to society, but rea-
soning individuals with dignity that stems from their logical ability. Note
that various political movements of the last century, communism and
fascism, viewed individuals as servants of society in the sense of “serv-
ing a greater good” that subsumes the individual’s dignity. The tension
between serving self (as managers) and serving the community (the
managed business) is a principal issue of this monograph. (This tension
underlies the material of the next chapter.)

2. People are by nature rational and good, although notions of evil,

such as those in religion, are accepted as possible. Kant argued that
it must be possible for evil to be overcome by thinking people.

As we shall explore in a latter chapter, the philosopher Hanna Arendt

argues that to prevent evil, people must exhibit the “noble nature” of
a willingness to argue rationally, and with logical reflection, in pub-
lic in order to prevent evil from permeating society (see Chapter 7 for
Arendt’s contribution). This is especially true when we consider simple
bureaucratic applications of codes of conduct that are applied without
rational reflection. This is a significant issue in management explored in
latter chapters.

3. Both individuals and humanity can progress.

According to Enlightenment philosophy, society can progress only

through the progress of individuals. This contradicts fascistic or com-
munistic philosophy where progress only occurs when people’s politi-
cal consciousness is manipulated by an elite group of leaders. Business’
 2 KANT’S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE AND MORAL DUTIES 15

contributions to humanity’s progress are substantial, and effective man-

agement makes this possible. (It is important, as explored in latter chap-
ters, to recognize managerial duty as contributing to the progress of
constituents.)

4. All people are equal as to their rationality and therefore must be

viewed as equal before the law.

This certainly contradicts any elitist approach to philosophy. It is neces-

sary that all people be considered as rational as a precondition for a dem-
ocratic approach to governance.3

5. Other religions and ways of life must be tolerated.

The “30 years war” proceeded the Enlightenment period in Europe.

This violence prone period saw religious wars sweep across the continent
with almost one-third of Europeans being killed. It is not surprising that
Enlightenment philosophers would attempt to eliminate this strife by an
appeal to non-religious-based reason.

6. Beliefs must be accepted only on the basis of reason, but also on

the basis of authority.

The essence of this philosophy is that reasoned discourse, as argued by

individuals in public life, is necessary for democracy, which is in turn
necessary to prevent the violent religious conflicts that preceded this
Enlightenment period. Reasoned discourse is an essential component of
the Kantian process.

7. 
The purpose of education is to disseminate knowledge, not to
mold feelings or character.

The Enlightenment exhibited an explosion of scientific, political, and

philosophical knowledge. It was contrary to any overly narrow religious
education that is based solely upon the molding of character. In particu-
lar, ethics came to be based on logic, not appeals to religious or other
authority.4
Reasoned reflection about the moral problems we face is a funda-
mental duty in the Enlightenment vision. Reasoned reflection is the very
16 R. M. ROBINSON

basis of the Greek origins of Western ethical philosophy. In this sense,

Kant’s philosophy builds upon the Socratic-Platonic foundation. It is
argued below that Kant’s categorical imperative, however, provides a
focus from which reason can deduce practical maxims for which we have
a duty to follow. It is important to note that all of our practical maxims
and duties must be derived from these broader axiomatic principles, i.e.,
the categorical imperative forms the foundation from which our practical
duties stem.

2  The Categorical Imperative and Its Three Formulae

Kant (1785: 402–403) claimed that his categorical imperative merely
reflects common reasoning concerning moral principles. His three inter-
related formulae of the “categorical imperative” do not stem from any
abstract laws of nature. They would not exist without the imposition of
the reasoning man. They do not transcend our experience as in Socratic
philosophy, nor are they based on our experience.5 They are person cen-
tered and proceed from the reasonable (rational) free will.6 These imper-
atives appear to us as obviously true. They are therefore axiomatic, so we
can derive practical maxims from them. They need no prior argument to
establish them. They stand alone in forming the premises for our sup-
porting arguments in favor of our derived practical maxims.
Kant argued that the very notion of morality requires free will, and
this requires individuals who are autonomous in their actions. Unlike
the Plato-Socratic approach, or that of Aristotle or of Christian ethics
(all perfectionist), Kant did not overtly attempt to objectively establish
notions of good in human characteristics, actions, or results. He indirectly
argued that fundamental moral principles as they apply to individuals and
society must be adopted through a reasoned discourse.
Kant argued that from rational free will, a “supreme practical prin-
ciple” called the categorical imperative, follows, namely that the moral
maxims we decide to live by must be intended by us to be universal, i.e.,
intended to apply to all. This rational law is often termed the formula for
universal law and is actually only one of three versions of Kant’s categor-
ical imperative. The second version is often termed the formula for the
end in itself: treat people as an end in themselves, not merely as a means to
our own ends. This requires that we allow others to pursue their ends as
long as they do not impinge the freedom of others to pursue their inter-
ests. As an example, engaging others via deception is always in violation.
 2 KANT’S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE AND MORAL DUTIES 17

The third version of the categorical imperative concerns what Kant

termed the pursuit of a kingdom of ends, an end result that motivates the
pursuit of moral imperatives. We explore this motivation in much more
detail below. In addition, Kant argued that the three formulae are really
different versions of each other, i.e., that each necessarily follows from
the other two.
The second version of the categorical imperative requires that we act
so as to allow others to act in their own interests; we do not use others
only as tools, but rather as agents and in such a way as to allow them
to pursue their own ends. If we follow these versions of the categorical
imperative in deciding the principles of morality as derived through gen-
eral agreement, then these principles can form a system of justice. Within
this system, each person acts as a contributing legislator and is bound by
the resulting democratically agreed-upon law since we give this law to
ourselves. In this sense, the categorical imperative presents a process or
guide for formation of practical moral maxims that must be agreed upon
by a plurality.7
As explained above, Kant presented three versions (or formulae) of
the categorical imperative. Below, I use Sullivan’s (1994, p. 29) precise
interpretations from the original language of each. We shall see that this
“precision” in interpretation is necessary for obtaining a full derivation of
notions of duty. Kant envisioned these versions as entirely consistent with
each other, and in fact he envisioned each as logically necessitated by the
others. The ethical-philosophical foundation of duty, especially imper-
fect duty, is posed by the categorical imperative process (CIP) as reviewed
below. This philosophical foundation is the kernel of this chapter, and
this monograph.
The CIP is built upon three interrelated formulae presented below
where each is derivable from the other, and that as a group pres-
ent both (i) a personal process for forming individual moral maxims
and (ii) a social discourse process for forming society’s moral maxims
whether expressed by law, or expressed by non-legal but nonetheless
ethical norms. (See Rawls, 1980, 1989, 2001 for extensive reviews and
elaborations of the CIP.) This process is reviewed in this chapter as the
important foundational generator of duty. Kant argued that the three
interrelated formulae, presented below, express the way the common
populace thinks about how our maxims should be formed. With respect
to Formula 1 below, Kant (1785, 4: 402) stated, “The common reason
of men in its practical judgments perfectly coincides with this, and always
18 R. M. ROBINSON

has …” Since the three formulae are interrelated, one derivable from the
other, this “common reason of men” argument applies to all three by
extension. This “common reason of men” also provides the ethical foun-
dation for the process. It is important to keep in mind that these formulae
are axiomatic guides for society’s reasoned discourse, from which society
derives our applicable and practical duties:

Formula 1—the formula of autonomy or of universal law: “I ought never

to act in such a way that I could not also will that my maxim should be a
universal law” (Kant, 1785, 4: 402).

Formula 2—the formula for the respect for the dignity of persons: “Act so
that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any
other, always as an end and never as a means only” (Kant, 1785, 4: 429).

Formula 3—the formula of legislation for a moral community: “All max-

ims that proceed from our own making of law ought to harmonize with
a possible kingdom of ends” (Kant, 1785, 4: 436).

The practical maxims derived from the CIP include both perfect duty
(avoiding those actions which are prohibited) and imperfect duty (those
volitional actions which we should consider doing, but which have prac-
tical limits such as with actions of beneficence). This CIP derives our
social maxims while constraining deliberations to adhere to what Kant
termed the universal principle of justice (UPJ):

Behave in such a way that your choices are compatible with the greatest
amount of external freedom for everyone. (Kant, 1797, 6: 230)

The categorical imperative process (CIP) therefore consists of (i) a rea-

soned social discourse that (ii) uses the categorical imperative as a guide,
and that (iii) is constrained by the universal principle of justice.
Kant’s first formula, the imperative of universal law, prohibits us from
behaving by personal maxims that are applicable only to us and that are
designed only for our convenience. For example, if our business tem-
porarily suffered from financial distress, and we decided that it would
be acceptable to commit some fraudulent act to ameliorate our prob-
lem, we would violate the imperative of universal law. We could never
will this temporarily fraudulent behavior to be universal. That would be
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
6244 Boles M S, Cor Cav 4K Aug
20
101 Aug
6279 Bower C
C 20
Aug
6319 Birney J Cav 4C
20
Aug
6359 Bennett A 67 K
21
Aug
6542 Blackman W 18 D
23
Aug
6551 Bannon P 7A
23
Aug
6554 Baldwin C H Cav 2K
23
149 Aug
6604 Barnett E T
I 23
Aug
6621 Bell Thos 11 E
23
Aug
6660 Blair Jno G 46 F
24
Aug
6663 Breckinridge W 73 K
24
Aug
6688 Bowman A 63 B
24
101 Aug
6701 Boyd J W
C 24
145 Aug
6704 Beemer Wm
K 24
Aug
6887 Brown T, Cor Cav 11 I
26
106 Aug
6928 Bryan L
F 26
Aug
7125 Bridaham H W 55 H
28
7181 Bemer S 184 Aug
 E 29
Aug
7347 Ball P 49 H
31
119 Sept
7460 Barnes W 64
G 1
Sept
7477 Bennett J 55 D
1
145 Sept
7541 Barnett M
K 2
143 Sept
7684 Black J
I 3
Sept
7747 Blair J G 49 E
3
Sept
7775 Brink F Cav 11 M
4
184 Sept
7940 Browers J A
F 5
Sept
7963 Brumley Fred’k 54 K
6
101 Sept
8073 Bright Adam, Cor
K 7
183 Sept
8075 Boland
I 7
103 Sept
8256 Barr P
C 9
Sept
8286 Brown L Cav 8C
9
101 Sept
8356 Brown A
H 10
101 Sept
8358 Brickenstaff W
I 10
101 Sept
8363 Bruce J B, S’t
F 10
Sept
8413 Blosser Jonas Res 7H
11
8434 Bowsteak T D, S’t 106 Sept
H 11
Sept
8499 Bicklet E H 57 K
11
101 Sept
8606 Boots E N
H 12
Sept
8719 Beattie Robert 95 D
14
Sept
8769 Boyer J M, S’t Cav 7F
14
Sept
8795 Bentley T 54 H
14
Sept
8794 Brown P 55 A
15
184 Sept
8902 Baker J
C 16
Sept
8917 Baker Wm Cav 11 -
16
Sept
9147 Blake E 69 K
18
Sept
9520 Boyler Jas 7E
22
Sept
9632 Baldwin A 51 K
24
Sept
9745 Bowers F Cav 5A
25
Sept
9809 Bonewell W W “ 14 C
26
Sept
9952 Blair Geo Art 7 -
28
Oct
10201 Burdge H Cav 3D
2
Oct
10226 Byers J 22 E
2
10260 Burns J 103 Oct
 E 3
Oct
10292 Brown G M 10 I
4
Oct
10357 Burgess H 27 C
5
Oct
10534 Buck D C Cav 2L
8
Oct
10577 Ballinger Geo 87 D
9
Oct
10674 Blackman W 84 A
11
51 Oct
10758 Beightel J F
G 12
145 Oct
10779 Boice J N
G 12
Oct
10783 Bowling J 3A
12
116 Oct
10943 Barthart I
H 14
Oct
10980 Baney Geo 4 I
15
Oct
10983 Bowyer J S 55 E
15
Oct
11024 Bunker F 55 K
16
149 Oct
11087 Bowman G
E 18
142 Oct
11322 Bissel B
F 22
Oct
11329 Bruce A 11 I
23
Oct
11434 Berk G 51 A
24
Oct
11445 Ball J, Cor 19 K
25
14504 Bain G 183 Oct
G 26
Oct
11528 Baney I Cav 4 I
26
148 Oct
11556 Baker B H
B 27
Oct
11563 Brock C 46 A
27
103 Oct
11569 Beighley W
C 27
106 Oct
11597 Blair Jno
H 28
Oct
11611 Boyer T 11 F
28
145 Oct
11635 Burr E
K 28
Oct
11674 Bolinger G 87 D
30
Nov
11818 Bayley H 66 K
4
Nov
11894 Burch W Art 2F
7
Nov
11929 Burke J D Cav 22 D
9
149 Nov
11972 Bupp L
G 12
Nov
12039 Bailey J J Art 2F
16
184 Nov
12059 Bogar David, S’t
C 17
Nov
12079 Bond C C 20 K
18
Nov
12096 Brady N Cav 5M 64
19
12168 Brubaker B P, Cor 79 D Nov
 26
Nov
12177 Braddock T 77 C
27
Jan
12418 Barrens J Cav 5G 65
9
Mar
12812 Barnett J 6D
25
July
2917 Brim Jas 56 I 64
5
184 Feb
12665 Bennett J 65
E 16
139 Mar
45 Carter Wm 64
H 14
Mar
97 Chase Wm B, S’t Cav 15 C
22
Mar
156 Compsey Jas “ 14 H
25
Apr
355 Carman F H 54 F
2
Apr
445 Coyle P 45 A
9
Apr
466 Crouch Levi 40 I
9
Apr
479 Croghan Jno, S’t Cav 3A
9
Apr
548 Case Daniel “ 8M
14
Apr
734 Conner Andrus C 4L
25
May
837 Cravener S P Cav 14 K
1
119 May
869 Curry A
E 3
May
1015 Campbell Wm Cav 8E
10
1099 Case Silas, Cor “ 2L May
14
May
1138 Carmichael G “ 18 K
16
150 May
1186 Crisholm J H
H 18
May
1206 Caldwell S A Cav 14 E
19
May
1232 Coburg M C “ 6L
20
May
1490 Coon J H “ 18 K
31
103 May
1498 Campbell H B
E 31
May
1530 Clatter F Cav 18 C
31
June
1702 Calihan Thos “ 14 H
7
145 June
1781 Cephas L
I 8
101 June
1829 Carter Wm
K 11
June
1832 Calvert R R, S’t 6B
11
June
1871 Coombs Jno Art 3 -
12
113 June
1873 Cox J A Cav
- 12
June
2069 Cooper T “ 18 K
16
June
2349 Curry R 73 F
23
June
2399 Coyle H Cav 8F
24
2455 Crouse E 141 June
 A 25
June
2695 Copple F 54 H
30
July
2713 Chapman J 7H
1
July
2849 Carron Jas Cav 4C
4
103 July
2884 Calean Sam’l
K 4
July
2995 Coleman J, S’t Cav 18 K
7
72 July
3320 Chase F M
G 14
July
3362 Clark N Cav 8D
15
July
3417 Caton W T 49 D
16
July
3430 Couch Benj 50 H
17
July
3948 Coyle Ed 58 E
25
July
3993 Curtey L 10 I
26
July
4045 Carpenter L 12 K
27
July
4117 Cantrill M 6B
28
July
4263 Conklin N 90 K
29
July
4331 Chapman J Art 3B
30
14 July
4353 Crawford M Cav
G 31
103 July
4357 Cox Jas
A 31
4369 Claybaugh G W A 2F July
31
Aug
4512 Crock H, Cor 45 A
1
103 Aug
4682 Croup W S
L 4
103 Aug
4729 Cochran C
I 4
Aug
4903 Chew Jno, Cor 18 F
6
Aug
5177 Cranes E Cav 4M
9
Aug
5375 Campbell Jas “ 3F
11
Aug
5417 Cregg J G 54 I
12
Aug
5423 Cumberland T C 14 B
12
115 Aug
5484 Conahan M
B 13
145 Aug
5578 Carpenter W C
G 14
Aug
5584 Campbell R D 11 E
14
Aug
5623 Cox H, Cor Cav 7B
14
Aug
5828 Cummings Benj 3A 64
16
184 Aug
5979 Conor J N
C 17
Aug
6237 Corbin W 49 C
20
Aug
6269 Campbell R G 11 C
20
6320 Coon George 2F Aug
 21
Cameron Wm, 101 Aug
6336
Cor A 21
Aug
6395 Connelly Wm 55 C
21
Aug
6430 Conner J 6D
22
Aug
6502 Cline J 3H
22
Aug
6615 Crawford J 77 E
23
Aug
6645 Coleman C 19 E
23
101 Aug
6746 Conly Jno
A 24
90 Aug
6913 Craft A
G 26
Aug
7045 Cobert F C Cav 11 L
27
51 Aug
7095 Carr J
G 28
103 Aug
7116 Cathcart Robt
H 29
Aug
7209 Crain J Cav 4H
29
103 Sept
7456 Craig Wm
D 1
184 Sept
7463 Clay Henry
A 1
140 Sept
7617 Curry S
C 2
Sept
7632 Carroll A Cav 2A
2
Sept
7669 Campbell G T Art 3A
3
7696 Criser M 54 F Sept
3
103 Sept
8117 Crawford J A
B 8
101 Sept
8121 Collins M
K 8
118 Sept
8169 Cole J C
K 8
Sept
8260 Chapman —— 18 A
9
Sept
8512 Coyle M, Cor 79 B
12
Sept
8594 Culver J 69 -
12
Sept
8665 Clutler L 11 C
13
119 Sept
8700 Cavender J L
E 14
Hvy Sept
8884 Cysey A 3 -
A 15
Sept
9094 Coffman Wm 13 F
18
Sept
9134 Cramer E 55 F
18
Sept
9141 Church C H, Cor 45 B
18
101 Sept
9269 Clark J
- 19
135 Sept
9396 Coats S R
C 20
Sept
9410 Combs S 1H
21
145 Sept
9508 Clonay J
F 22
9554 Crum C 149 Sept
 G 23
118 Sept
9639 Cline J
A 24
Sept
9773 Coulter G 45 K
25
Sept
9823 Cummings R 65 K
27
Sept
9886 Callahan M 52 D
27
14 Sept
9931 Conrad W Cav
M 28
Sept
10104 Campbell Wm “ 13 D
30
139 Oct
10120 Coats L R
H 1
Oct
10274 Crawford Geo 1F
3
Oct
10276 Cantler J L 13 A
3
Oct
10283 Cromich F 7H
4
Oct
10386 Cornelius Wm Cav 7 -
5
Oct
10399 Cullingford P 55 C
6
Oct
10443 Clark W Cav 5K
7
Oct
10462 Canby G C “ 2E
7
Coperhewer Wm, Oct
10497 1D
Cor 8
Oct
10541 Culberton Louis 73 B
9
184 Oct
10842 Corbin M
D 13
10847 Clark G Cav 1H Oct
13
145 Oct
11005 Coe Geo W
E 16
Oct
11025 Clark J 3D
16
184 Oct
11250 Clark H
F 21
101 Oct
11309 Clark E B
B 22
145 Oct
11370 Carrol W
B 23
184 Oct
11436 Crawford L
R 24
Oct
11438 Cole H O Cav 2L
24
Oct
11477 Campbell C A “ 11 C
26
Oct
11565 Creagan G “ 1F
27
Oct
11614 Crawford M 14 K 64
28
Oct
11656 Coyle H 54 K
30
Oct
11659 Craney Geo Cav 20 L
30
Nov
11800 Cregger W H “ 5G
4
106 Nov
11815 Chacon A W
B 4
Nov
11826 Colebaugh W 60 K
5
145 Nov
11876 Crandall L
I 6
11922 Cleaveland E Cav 10 I Nov
 8
143 Nov
11993 Crampton A B
B 13
Nov
12120 Cullen T I 31 I
22
Nov
12141 Conway C C Art 2A
23
Dec
12255 Crompton F G 71 F
10
115 Dec
12295 Cone S
E 16
138 Dec
12301 Culp P K
B 17
112 Jan
12368 Connor S 65
H 1
Jan
12424 Clark J 89 D
9
118 Jan
12487 Collins G
E 19
Feb
12599 Cassell D 20 E
6
Feb
12672 Clark F D 7C
20
Mar
12818 Copeland B Cav 14 D
29
June
1961 Culbertson Jno “ 13 B 64
14
Mar
152 Davidson H 57 I
25
119 May
866 Dorr Phineas
K 3
May
1020 Doran McK 63 D
11
May
1161 Duntler Henry, Cor 51 K
16
1338 Dooner M 2K May
24
May
1463 Davis Richard Cav 3L
29
June
1541 Deamott J K 45 C
1
June
1545 Davis Isaac Cav 8H
1
101 June
2630 Dun R B
B 29
139 June
2657 Donovan J
K 29
July
2716 Deily Wm 53 H
1
July
2938 Davis M Cav 22 B
6
15 July
3338 Degret N “
M 15
100 July
3363 Davidson Chas
M 15
July
3741 Dallin Jas Cav 8H
21
103 July
3795 Davis J
A 22
103 July
3873 Davis M H
E 24
July
3985 Dougherty J 7E
26
149 July
4087 Deron Robt
B 29
July
4202 Drenkle J A 79 K
29
184 July
5232 Dechmam Jno
G 29
4481 Dodrick Louis 50 I Aug
 1
Aug
4491 Denton M Cav 9B
1
Aug
4497 Day Wm 97 A
1
101 Aug
4625 Davis J
E 3
Aug
4711 Dort C R Cav 4H
4
101 Aug
4786 Dondle Robt
A 5
Aug
4792 Davy H, Cor 68 K
5
101 Aug
4806 Davenbrook J J
G 5
101 Aug
4885 Delaney J
A 6
14 Aug
4897 Dunbar Jno Cav
M 6
148 Aug
4910 Dean J
F 6
110 Aug
5023 Dawlin
D 8
Aug
5256 Ditztell L 73 I
10
Aug
5431 Davidson Geo 57 C
12
101 Aug
5468 Dougherty
I 13
Aug
5664 Decker J 45 B
14
Aug
5740 Day And H Cav 2H
15
Aug
5746 Doran P 99 I
15
6017 Deal F 63 A Aug
17
Aug
6045 Degroot H, S’t Cav 13 A
18
15 Aug
6176 Defree Jas
G 19
Aug
6226 Dodd J 18 F
20
153 Aug
6316 Davis Wm
A 20
148 Aug
6568 Dawney Geo
B 23
Aug
9679 Donavan D 90 B
24
Aug
6678 Dunn Johnes 69 F 64
25
Aug
6797 Dailey M 7 I
25
184 Aug
6879 Dunn Jno
A 26
Aug
7053 Dakenfelt J 55 D
28
Aug
7077 Deets R 3A
28
Aug
7282 Day S, Cor 13 A
30
110 Aug
7360 Dively J
C 31
Sept
7488 Dilks C 1K
1
50 Sept
7651 Dewell Samuel
G 3
184 Sept
7828 Dougherty J
D 4
8211 Dixon J 105 Sept
 B 8
Sept
8334 Doherty J, S’t 73 F
10
Sept
8569 Duff J, S’t Cav 4B
12
Sept
8579 Dougherty F 90 C
12
Sept
8718 Durharse B Cav 11 G
14
Sept
8828 Donnelly J 97 H
15
Sept
8887 Dean R Cav 2M
15
90 Sept
9109 Davidson C
G 18
Sept
9146 Driscoll N C 26 I
18
Sept
9191 Duffie J 52 F
18
Sept
9289 Delaney E 7G
19
Sept
10004 Davidson G, Cor 12 K
29
Oct
10193 Dougherty M Cav 3D
2
Oct
10436 Durkale Jno “ 1F
6
139 Oct
10917 Dalzell J G
I 14
Oct
11295 Derry Frederick 20 C
22
Oct
11350 Dichell Espy 55 D
23
Oct
11394 Dewitt M Cav 1E
24
11628 Davidson S 184 Oct
A 28
Oct
11988 Dickens Chas Art 2A
13
145 Oct
12136 Dalrysuffle J E
K 23
120 Jan
12399 Donley P 65
G 5
Feb
12575 Deeds J Cav 13 H
2
145 Oct
11181 Dixon B 64
K 19
May
972 Ellers Henry Cav 13 H
9
May
1081 Eisley Jno “ 18 K
14
May
1436 Engle Peter “ 14 K
28
June
2105 Elliott Jno “ 13 F
17
July
2794 Elliott J 69 D
2
July
3038 Erwin C 78 D
8
145 July
3052 Epsey Jas, S’t
H 9
103 July
3295 Elliott J P
D 14
July
3823 Ebright Benj Cav 9A
23
July
4278 Eaton Nat Rifle 1E
30
145 Aug
4761 Ellenberger P
D 5
5687 Ennies Andrew 145 Aug
 K 15
103 Aug
6424 Ewetts Jas
G 22
53 Aug
6607 Ellis F
G 23
Aug
6872 Eckles E 77 E
26
184 Aug
6889 Ensley C
A 26
Aug
7300 Ellis H H Cav 18 I
30
Sept
7657 Egan Jno 55 C
3
Sept
8066 Exline Jacob 55 K
7
143 Sept
8543 Eichnor C
F 12
Sept
8964 Earlman J 7K
16
Sept
10009 Elfrey B S 7K
29
Oct
10694 Elliott Jno H 83 D
11
Oct
10731 Erdibach C, Cor Cav 5B
11
187 Oct
10799 Ervingfelts Jacob
D 12
Nov
11834 Edgar W H, S’t 7G
5
Nov
11838 Erebedier J, S’t 5B
5
145 Nov
12001 Etters D
D 14
Feb
12673 Ebhart J, Cor 87 E 65
18