Considerations Of Morality And Ethics In Business: Whitehead

Considerations of Morality and Ethics in Business: Whitehead and Kant

In the realm of business ethics, a complex interplay exists between moral principles, organizational behavior, and philosophical frameworks. This paper argues that while businesses are not moral agents in the strict philosophical sense, they can nevertheless uphold ethical standards that guide responsible conduct. The core focus centers on applying Kant’s first categorical imperative to business practices, considering perspectives from deontological and teleological ethics, as well as moral relativism and objectivism. This comprehensive analysis integrates definitions of foundational ethical theories and philosophical viewpoints, emphasizing the importance of morality both individually and organizationally, particularly within modern corporate dynamics.

Introduction and Thesis Statement

The argument posited herein is that businesses can develop and adhere to ethical standards even though they are not moral agents themselves, primarily because organizations act through their members and leaders who are moral agents. Thus, organizations have a moral obligation to operate ethically, aligning with Kantian principles of universalizability and respect for persons. This perspective recognizes that ethical standards serve not only societal interests but are also imperative for sustainable business success, aligning with Whitehead’s process philosophy and Kant’s moral imperatives.

Understanding Morality, Ethics, and Business

Morality typically refers to a set of shared social norms and values that guide individual conduct, while ethics involves the systematic study of these moral principles. Descriptive morality describes how individuals and societies behave, whereas normative morality prescribes what they ought to do. In the context of business, it is crucial to distinguish between the moral agency of individuals and the organizational structure, which itself cannot possess consciousness or moral intent but can act ethically through its agents.

Utilitarianism, a teleological ethical framework, evaluates actions based on their outcomes, emphasizing the greatest happiness for the greatest number (Mill, 1863). In contrast, Kantian deontological ethics advocates for actions rooted in duty, guided by universal principles encapsulated in the categorical imperative. Process philosophy, notably advanced by Whitehead (1929), perceives reality as a web of interconnected processes where moral development is continuous and relational, emphasizing the importance of responsibility and creativity in moral decision-making.

Within the corporate sphere, moral relativism suggests that ethical standards vary across cultures and contexts, whereas moral objectivism insists on universal moral truths. A balanced approach considers the contextual nuances while recognizing fundamental moral principles that transcend cultural boundaries (Magnusson, 2004).

Can Businesses Have Ethical Standards Without Being Moral Agents?

Yes, businesses can possess ethical standards despite lacking moral agency. The distinction lies in that moral agency entails consciousness, intentionality, and the capacity for moral judgment—attributes solely ascribed to individuals (Kant, 1785). Businesses, as corporate entities, are composed of individuals acting within institutional frameworks. They operate through policies, codes of conduct, and social norms established by human agents committed to ethical practices.

Organizations serve as structures that facilitate or hinder moral actions but are not morally responsible in and of themselves. Instead, moral responsibility resides with their agents—executives, employees, and stakeholders—who enact ethical or unethical behavior. Hence, organizations can embed ethical standards into their culture and operations, guiding individuals’ conduct toward responsible and fair practices (Crane & Matten, 2010).

From a normative perspective, embedding ethical standards within business practices aligns with duties and responsibilities that organizations owe to society, stakeholders, and future generations. This normative stance emphasizes the importance of organizational integrity and accountability, despite the absence of moral agency per se.

Applying Kant’s First Categorical Imperative in Business

Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative states: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 1785). Applying this principle in business involves formulating policies and actions that could be universally adopted without contradiction. For instance, a company contemplating deceptive advertising would ask: if dishonesty were universal, would the marketplace function effectively? The answer would be no, thus making such actions morally impermissible.

In practice, this involves understanding whether business practices respect the autonomy and dignity of all stakeholders, including employees, consumers, and communities. If every business adopted selfish or exploitative practices, trust and social stability would diminish, ultimately harming the profitability and sustainability of all enterprises—a contradiction if universalized.

Supporting reasons for applying Kantian ethics in business include:

1. Respect for persons as ends in themselves—business practices should promote dignity and autonomy, not manipulate or exploit stakeholders.
2. Universalizability principle fosters consistency and fairness across the market, reducing unethical competitive advantages.
3. Promotion of moral integrity enhances reputation and long-term profitability, aligning moral duties with organizational success.

Ethical Theories and Perspectives in Business Practice

Deontological ethics emphasizes duty and adherence to moral principles regardless of consequences. Teleological ethics, exemplified by utilitarianism, evaluates actions based on outcomes and overall happiness (Bentham, 1789). Moral objectivism asserts that certain moral principles are universally valid, whereas ethical relativism contends morality is culturally dependent. Process philosophy, specifically Whitehead’s view, emphasizes interconnectedness, moral creativity, and responsibility as ongoing parts of societal evolution (Whitehead, 1929).

Applying these theories to business, deontology would advocate for honesty and fairness as duties, whereas utilitarianism might justify compromises if they maximize economic benefits. Moral relativism suggests that corporate ethics should adapt to cultural contexts, though this risks justifying unethical practices under the guise of cultural differences. Moral objectivism supports universal standards—like justice and human rights—that transcend cultural specificities, aligning with Kantian universalizability.

Whitehead’s process philosophy urges corporate leaders to view ethical decision-making as an ongoing, relational process that involves flexibility, responsiveness, and creativity, promoting sustainable and responsible business practices.

Conclusion

In conclusion, businesses are not moral agents in the strict philosophical sense, but they can and should uphold ethical standards. Applying Kant’s categorical imperative provides a valuable framework for moral decision-making, emphasizing universality, respect, and consistency. Integrating insights from deontological and teleological ethics, along with process philosophy, fosters a comprehensive understanding of corporate responsibility that aligns with moral objectivism while respecting cultural diversity. Ultimately, morality in business is essential for sustainable success, societal trust, and the well-being of all stakeholders.

References

• Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Clarendon Press.
• Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2010). Business Ethics (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. (H. J. Paton, Trans.). Harper & Brothers.
• Magnusson, L. (2004). Moral Objectivism and Moral Relativism. Routledge.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and Reality. The Free Press.
• Feldman, J. (2012, August 27). Sunday Dialogue: How Corporations Behave. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com
• Rosen, R. (2013). Moral Philosophy. Routledge.
• Shaw, W. H. (2008). Business Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Business Cases. Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
• Velasquez, M. (2012). Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases (7th ed.). Pearson.