BUSINESS ETHICS

Chapter 2
THEORIES OF ETHICS AND BUSINESS
Part 2- Theory of morality- Immanuel
Kant
(Thuyết đạo lý)
LECTURER: DUONG THI HOAI NHUNG (MBA)
FACULTY OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
EMAIL: nhungdth@ftu.edu.vn
1 MOBILE: 0985867488
 CHAPTER 2:
THEORIES OF ETHICS AND BUSINESS
Readings:
Laura P.Hartman, et.al, 2014, Business Ethics- Decision
making for integrity and social responsibility, Mc. Graw
Hills.
- Chapter 3: Philosophical Ethics and Business

Thomas Donaldson, et al., 2008, Ethical issues in business-

A philosophical approach (8th), Person Prentice Hall.
- A Kantian approach to business ethics- Norman E. Bowie,
p56-p66

2
 Case: Motherhood for Sale

This is a case involving market and in fact a

contract in a human reproductive capacity and
this is a case of commercial surrogate
motherhood, it is a case that wound up in court
some years ago. It began with William and
Elizabeth Stern, a professional couple wanting
a baby, but they could not have one in their
own, at least without medical risks to Mrs
Stern.
They went to an infertility clinic where they
met Whitehead, a 29 year-old mother of 2 kids,
the wife of a sanitation worker. She had replied
an advertisement that the Stern had placed
3
seeking the service of a surrogate mother.
 Case: Motherhood for Sale (cont.)
They made a deal, they signed a contract in which
William Stern agreed to pay Whitehead a $10,000 fee
plus all expenses in exchange for which for Whitehead
agreed to be artificially inseminated with William
Stern’s sperm to bear the child and then to give the
baby to the Sterns.
Whitehead gave birth and changed her mind; she
decided she wanted to keep the baby. The case wound
up in court in New Jersey.
So let’s take put aside any legal questions and focus on
this issue as moral questions.
How many believe that the right thing to do in the
baby M case would have been to uphold the contract,
to enforce the contract? Why?
How many think the right thing to do would have
4
been not to enforce that contract? Why?
 CHAPTER 2:
THEORIES OF ETHICS AND BUSINESS
Is utility is use the only proper way of treating goods? If
not how we figure it out?
 How can we determine what modes of valuation are fitting
or appropriate to those goods?
As opposed to teleological frameworks, which focus on
whether the results are favorable or not, deontological
frameworks focus on the duty or obligation in determining
whether the actions are right or wrong.
There is the deontological framework: Kant’s ethics.

5
 CHAPTER 2:
THEORIES OF ETHICS AND BUSINESS
3. Theory of morality- Immanuel
Kant
One of the greatest philosophers
within the Western tradition is
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804).
Immanuel Kant who offers a
different account of why we have
a categorical duty to respect the
dignity of persons and not to use
person as means merely even for
good ends.
6
 CHAPTER 2:
THEORIES OF ETHICS AND BUSINESS
3. Theory of morality- Immanuel Kant
but it’s important to try figure what
he’s saying, because what the book
discussed that supreme principle of
morality, what the freedom really is?
In his book Foundations of the
Metaphysics o f Morals “Phê phán lý
tính thuần túy” (1785), Immanuel Kant
discussed ethical decisions based on the
free will of the individual. Kant argued
that the free will to make decisions that
were considered rational needed to be
converted into a universal will.
7
 3. Theory of morality- Immanuel Kant

3.1 Kant’s objections to Utilitarianism

a. Kant rejects Utilitarianism, he thinks that the individual
person, all human being have a certain dignity that
commands our respect.
The reason the individual is sacred or the bearer of rights,
according to Kant, doesn’t stem from the idea that we own
ourselves, but instead from the idea that we are all
rational beings. We are all rational beings, which simply
means that we are beings who are capable of reason.
We are also autonomous of beings, which is to say that we are
beings capable of acting and choosing freely.
8
 3. Theory of morality- Immanuel Kant
3.1 Kant’s objections to Utilitarianism
b. This capacity for reason and freedom isn’t the only capacity
we have, we also have capacity for pain and pleasure, for
suffering and satisfaction. Kant admits the utilitarians were
half right. Kant does not deny this. What he does deny is
Bentham’s claim that pain and pleasure are our sovereign
master, he thinks that is wrong.
 Kant thinks that it’s our rational capacity that make us
distinctive, that make us special, that sets us apart from and
above mere animal existence. It make us something more
than just physical creatures with appetites.

9
 3. Theory of morality- Immanuel Kant
3.2 Kant’s conception of freedom
What do you think about freedom?
- Generally, people think about freedom as the following:
Freedom as simply consisting in doing what we want or in the
absence of obstacles to getting what we want, that’s one way
of thinking about freedom.

10
 3. Theory of morality- Immanuel Kant
3.2 Kant’s conception of freedom
Kant’s idea of freedom.
Kant has more stringent demanding notion of what it mean to
be free.
When people like animal, seek after pleasure, or satisfaction
of our desires or avoidance of pain, when we do that we are
not acting really freely. Why not? Because we really acting as
the slaves of those appetites and impulses. I did not choose
particular hunger or that particular appetites and so when I act
to satisfy it, I’m just acting according to natural necessity.
And for Kant, freedom is opposite to necessity.
11
 3. Theory of morality- Immanuel Kant
3.2 Kant’s conception of freedom
According to Kant, freedom means as following:
To act freely
= to act autonomously
= to act according to a law I give myself
(Not according to physical law of nature or the law of cause and
effect) Immanuel Kant

12
 3. Theory of morality- Immanuel Kant
3.2 Kant’s conception of freedom
How different a law I give myself from physical law of
nature??
Example: dropping a pen
Does the pen drop freely on the ground?

13
 Example: Shopkeeper
 He supposes there is a shopkeeper and an
inexperienced customer comes in.
 The shopkeeper knows that he could give
the customer the wrong change, could
shortchange the customer and get away
with it; at east that customer wouldn’t
know.
 But the shopkeeper nonetheless says “Well,
If I shortchange this customer, word may
get out, my reputation would be damaged,
and I would lose business. So I will not
shortchange this customer.”
 Finally, the shopkeeper dose nothing
wrong, he gives correct change.
14
 Does the shopkeeper act freely?
 3. Theory of morality- Immanuel Kant
3.2 Kant’s conception of freedom
Kant tells us, this capacity to act freely is what give human life
its special dignity. Respecting human dignity means regarding
persons not just as means but also as ends in themselves.

(Kant nhận định: Khả năng được hành động tự do này làm cho con người có
phẩm giá cao hơn, coi trọng phẩm giá con người không những là phương tiện
mà là mục đích tự thân.)

 This is why is wrong to use people for the sake of other people’s
welling being or happiness. Kant says, this is the real reason that
utilitarian goes wrong. This is the reason it’s important to respect
15 the dignity of person and to uphold their rights.
 3. Theory of morality- Immanuel Kant
Then we can see how connected idea between freedom and
morality.
??? What makes an action morally worthy consists not in
the consequences or in the result that flow from it?
Kant says What make an action morally worthy has to do
with the motive, with the quality of the will with the
intention for which the act is done.
(Điều gì khiến 1 hđ có giá trị về mặt đạo đức nếu không xét đến KQ hay hậu
quả của nó? Nó liên quan đến ĐỘNG CƠ (Motivative) với phẩm chất, ý chí,
ý định của hđ và động cơ phải thuộc vào 1 loại nhất định nào đó)

16
 3. Theory of morality- Immanuel Kant
3.3 Kant’s conception of morality
Moral worth of an action depends on motive (do
the right thing for the right reason)
 (Giá trị đạo đức của 1 hđ phụ thuộc vào động cơ của nó -
động cơ đúng là làm điều đúng đắn vì lý do đúng đắn)

“A good will isn’t good because of what it effects

or accomplishes it’s good in itself. Even if by
utmost effort the good will accomplishes nothing
it would still shine like a jewel for its own sake as
something which has its full value in itself”
Immanuel Kant
 “Thiện chí chưa chắc đã tốt bởi vì nó tác động hay thực hiện,
bản thân nó đã tốt rồi, kể cả khi cố gắng đến mấy những
thiện chí không làm được gì cả thì tự bản thân nó đã tỏa sáng
17 như 1 loại đá quý, 1 thứ vật chất bản thân đã đầy giá trị”.
 3. Theory of morality- Immanuel Kant
3.3 Kant’s conception of morality
Kant simply did not accept that moral actions followed from
one’s feelings or desires. Indeed, quite the opposite; we do
what is right because it is our duty to do so rather than our
inclination.
Only action done for the sake of the moral law, for the sake
of the duty. Only these actions have the moral worth. The
idea is that the motive confers the moral worth on an action.
And the only kind of the motive that can confer moral
worth on an action is the motive of the duty.

18
 3. Theory of morality- Immanuel Kant
3.4 Kant’s conception of imperative
But what dose Kantian morality think our duties are?
Kant distinguished between 2 kinds of duty (imperatives):
hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative.
 “If the action would be good solely as a means to
something else, the imperative is hypothetical. If the action
is represented as good in itself and therefore as necessary…
for a will which of itself accords with reason, then the
imperative is categorical” Immanuel Kant
 “Nếu hành động tốt chỉ là phương tiện cho 1 cái khác như Kant viết, thì nó là

mệnh lệnh giả thiết, nếu bản thân hành động đã tốt rồi và cần thiết có ý chí

19 tương ứng cho nó thì đó là mệnh lệnh tuyệt đối”

 3. Theory of morality- Immanuel Kant
3.4 Kant’s conception of imperative
Hypothetical imperative:

Example:
If you want a good reputation in business, you should not shortchange
to customer because the customer could know about it.
We go to work to earn money or study to earn good grades. If you

20
want good grades, you ought to study. The duty of study is depend on
your desire for good grades.
 3. Theory of morality- Immanuel Kant
3.4 Kant’s conception of imperative
Hypothetical imperative:
Kant referred to this kind of the duty as a hypothetical
imperative because it is of the form if you want to do x, do y.
Sometimes we do something so that we may get something
else.
Categorical imperative:
Kant says categorical imperative is the supreme principle
of morality
Kant formulated categorical imperatives based on 2 ways:

21
 3. Theory of morality- Immanuel Kant
3.4 Kant’s conception of imperative
a. The formula of universal law (Quy luật phổ quát)
 “Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will
that it should become a universal law”.
 “Chỉ hành động theo quy tắc khi bạn thấy rằng nó trở thành quy tắc phổ quát”

 Act only on maxims which you can will to be universal laws of nature.
(Since Kant believed that every action has a maxim, we are to ask what would happen if
the principle (maxim) of your action were a universal law (one that everyone acted on).

 Briefly, if we are considering whether a particular action is

morally right we should imagine that this action becomes an
22 instance of a general rule which is adopted by everyone at all times.
 Categorical imperative:
a. The formula of universal law (Quy luật phổ quát)
Discussion:
Suppose that an employee, angry at the boss for some justified
reason, considers stealing from the firm.
Could a maxim which permitted stealing be universalized?

23
 Categorical imperative:
a. The formula of universal law (Quy luật phổ quát)
Discussion:
Suppose that 2 parties (buyer & seller) agree to sign in the contract
negotiating the price. Then the buyer wants to demand price reductions
from negotiated contracts with seller. In this way, the buyer can cut costs
and contributed to its bottom line.
Could a maxim which permitted contract breaking be universalized?

24
 Categorical imperative (cont.)
b. The formula of humanity as end- Quy luật con người là mục
đích
“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity,
whether in your own person or in the person of any
other, never simply as a means, but always at the same
time, as an end” Immanuel Kant
 “Hành động theo cách mà luôn đối xử với con người, cho dù chính bản thân

mình hoặc là người khác không đơn giản chỉ coi đó là phương tiện mà đồng
thời là mục đích”.

 Always treat the humanity in a person as an end, and

never
25
as a means merely.
 b. The formula of humanity as end-
Quy luật con người là mục đích
Discussion:
People have been deeply concerned about the massive
layoff created by the downsizing of corporation in the
economic crisis (2008-2014).
How do you justify the moral worth of layoff?
Explanation this argument based on Kantian formulation
of humanity as an end.

26
 b. The formula of humanity as end-
Quy luật con người là mục đích
 What are the implications of this formulation of the
categorical imperative for business?

1. Treating stakeholders as persons

No one is used as merely a means in a voluntary economic
exchange where both parties benefit.
The person in a business relationship not be used, not be
coerced or deceived.

27
 b. The formula of humanity as end-
Quy luật con người là mục đích
 What are the implications of this formulation of the categorical
imperative for business?

For a Kantian, meaningful work:

 is freely chosen and provides opportunities for the worker to
exercise autonomy on the job;
 supports the autonomy and rationality of human beings; work
that lessens autonomy or that undermines rationality is immoral;
 provides a salary sufficient to exercise independence and
provide for physical wellbeing and the satisfaction of some of
the worker’s desires;
 enables a worker to develop rational capacities; and

28 does not interfere with a worker’s moral development.


 2. Utilitarianism-Jeremy Bentham
• Discussion:
Considering the issue in ethical approach, what do you think
about action: hiring child labor especially in developing
countries? Explaining based on studied ethical theories.

29
John Stuart Mill
 Case study: Confidentiality

Questions:
Do you reveal this information to your cousin but violate
the privacy and confidentiality that you have sworn
yourself to and are legally obliged to maintain?
Or do you keep the information to yourself but jeopardize
the health and life of your cousin by preserving the
deception by her fiancé?
Identifying how many choices to deal with situation do
you consider?
Justifying each your choice based on theory of
Utilitarianism and Kant’s ethics
30
 Summary
3. Theory of morality- Immanuel Kant
3.1 Kant’s objections to Utilitarianism
 the individual person, all human being have a certain dignity that
commands our respect.
 We not only have capacity for pain and pleasure, we are all rational
beings who are capable of reason, acting and choosing freely.
3.2 Kant’s conception of freedom
 To act freely
= to act autonomously
= to act according to a law I give myself
(Not according to physical law of nature or the law of cause
31
and effect)
 Summary (cont.)
3.3 Kant’s conception of morality
 Moral worth of an action depends on motive (do the right thing
for the right reason)
3.4 Kant’s conception of imperative
 Kant distinguished between 2 kinds of duty (imperatives):
hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative.
 Hypothetical imperative:
 Categorical imperative: (the supreme principle of morality)
 The formula of universal law
 The formula of humanity as end
 Autonomy and the Kingdom of Ends

32
 3. Theory of morality- Immanuel Kant
Terminology:
 Freedom: Tự do

 Autonomy: tự chủ/tự trị

 Morality: đạo đức

 Motive: động cơ

 Imperative: mệnh lệnh

 Hypothetical impretive: mệnh lệnh giả thiết

 Categorical imperative: mệnh lệnh tuyệt đối

33
Supreme principle of morality: Nguyên tắc tối thượng của đạo đức