In Light Of Kant's Moral Philosophy And His Account Of An En

In Light Of Kants Moral Philosophy And His Account Of An Enlightened

In light of Kant’s moral philosophy and his account of an enlightened institution, do multinational enterprises have a moral obligation to provide a “living wage” in the countries where they, or their subcontractors and suppliers, operate? Please respond with reference to (i) Norman/ Bowie’s article - Denis Arnold & Norman Bowie, “Sweatshops and Respect for Persons” and (ii) one of the texts by Kant that we have read in the course and/or Friedman’s “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Make a Profit.” Be sure to consider how someone might disagree with your position.

Paper For Above instruction

Kantian moral philosophy, emphasizing respect for persons as ends in themselves, provides a compelling framework to evaluate the moral obligations of multinational enterprises (MNEs), particularly regarding their responsibilities to ensure fair wages in the countries where they operate. Kant’s concept of an enlightened institution aligns with the notion of moral duty performed out of respect for the rational agency of individuals, which extends to considerations of justice, fairness, and human dignity. When analyzing whether MNEs are morally obliged to provide a living wage, it is essential to consider Kant’s categorical imperative and the principle of treating humanity, whether in oneself or others, always as an end and never merely as a means.

Norman and Bowie’s article, “Sweatshops and Respect for Persons,” underscores that respecting persons entails ensuring that workers are treated with dignity and fairness, which includes fair compensation. They argue that sweatshops often violate respect by exploiting workers, depriving them of genuine autonomous agency through oppressive working conditions and inadequate wages. From a Kantian perspective, this rejection of respect and dignity violates the moral duty of enterprises to treat workers as ends in themselves, not merely as means to profit. Hence, the moral obligation to pay a living wage aligns with Kant’s imperative to foster a community of mutually respectful persons, where workers are empowered and their agency respected.

Furthermore, Kant’s principle of universality requires that if an enterprise adopts the practice of paying a living wage in one context, it must do so universally, applying to all similar cases to uphold the moral law. This means that the practice of ensuring fair wages should not be contingent on the host country’s laws or economic conditions but should be rooted in moral duty. Ignoring such duties in countries where economies are weaker and workers are more vulnerable would be hypocritical if the enterprise claims to operate under a Kantian ethic.

On the other hand, critics might argue that economic realities and the pursuit of profit justify lower wages or that imposing a living wage could harm economic development or competitiveness. Friedman’s assertion that the social responsibility of business is to make a profit could be invoked to justify minimal wages, emphasizing shareholder interests over moral considerations. However, such views neglect Kant’s emphasis on moral duty and respect for human dignity, which transcend mere economic calculus. For Kant, moral obligations are unconditional and not subject to cost-benefit analyses aimed solely at maximizing profit.

Disagreeing perspectives might suggest that multinational companies have duties primarily within their own national contexts or that imposing a living wage could undermine economic growth in developing countries. Yet, from a Kantian standpoint, moral duties are universalizable and rooted in respect for persons regardless of geographic or economic boundaries. Therefore, the moral obligation to provide a living wage is consistent with Kant’s vision of an enlightened, moral community where persons are treated as ends.

In conclusion, applying Kant’s moral philosophy and the concept of an enlightened institution strongly supports the view that MNEs have a moral obligation to pay a living wage in all countries of operation. Such an obligation respects the dignity and autonomy of workers, aligns with universal moral principles, and fosters a more just global economic system. While economic challenges may complicate this issue, the ethical imperatives rooted in Kantian respect for persons provide a compelling moral foundation for advocating fair wages across international borders.

References

• Arnold, D., & Bowie, N. E. (2003). Sweatshops and respect for persons. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(2), 139-152.
• Kant, I. (1993). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press.
• Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine.
• MacIntyre, A. (2007). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. University of Notre Dame Press.
• Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Harvard University Press.
• Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.
• Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman Publishing Inc.
• Rosenblum, N. (2014). Ethical challenges in global business. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(2), 213-225.
• Dutfield, G. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in global supply chains: The case for a human rights approach. Third World Quarterly, 27(4), 681-694.
• Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2004). A perspective on regional and global strategies of multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(1), 3-18.