Business Ethics according to Kants Principles - Essay Example

? (Assignment) Business Ethics I According to Kant’s principles, it is the intention behind an action, not its consequences, that makes the action good. In other words, persons of good will do their duty because it is their duty to do so. Kant identified two kinds of duty (imperatives). The first one is hypothetical imperative which states “if you want to achieve Y, do A”. For example, to achieve good grades, one requires to study. The other group of duty is categorical in nature, and is based on the fundamental principles of ethics. In this case, there are no ifs and buts. However, a close look reveals the fact that applying Kant’s principles into the modern business world is a tough task due to many reasons. The first such issue that requires attention is the fact that Kant proposes that the same maxim can be applied to two moral dilemmas. However, it seems that at times, there are issues of conflicting duties. For example, the United States in the 1990s witnessed the shutting down and massive layoffs of many enterprises. A closer look reveals the fact it becomes impossible to assess this situation using Kant’s ideology. To illustrate, the Kant’s philosophy would argue that the employees, in such cases, are being used as mere means to enhance the shareholder wealth, and hence, it is immoral from the part of the company to shut down. If someone agrees that it is immoral from the part of the company to shut down, and that the company should run irrespective of the consequences of that action, the issue gets more complicated. For example, the company is showing injustice towards its shareholders. In other words, when the company resorts to showing morality towards the employees by avoiding layoffs, it fails to show the same morality towards its shareholders. Thus, it becomes evident that Kant’s theory of categorical imperative is not absolute in nature. Yet another example is the forced retirement of employees in a company so that the company can pass through a financial crisis by reducing expenses. It is very evident that according to the widely accepted notion in the business field, it is justifiable to crucify a few innocent if it does good to the majority. However, the Kant ideology is in stark contradiction with this ideology. In both the cases, it seems difficult to find a solution that can do justice to all the stakeholders. However, a solution to this kind of issues comes from the notion of open book management. This method was developed and implemented by Jack Stack at the Springfield Manufacturing Company. According to Schuster, Carpenter and Kane (227), under the open book management system, the company informs its employees about the financial situation of the company on a regular basis. Thus, when the employees possess sufficient knowledge about the performance and financial situation of the company, they too have an equal responsibility in the running of the company. It is very evident that in open book management, employees get a chance to take wise decisions about their performance and career. So, if the company faces a situation like layoff, the level of suspicion and confusion will be far less, and sometimes, the committed employees may propose to work for a limited wage to face the crisis. Anyhow, it is highly unlikely from the part of employees to allege that they are deceived by the company. Thus, it becomes evident that a proper understanding of the Kant ideology and its application in the workplace will make more meaningful workplace by enhancing self-respect and freedom. In addition, it means the removal of a layer of supervisors as the company no longer requires supervisors to monitor its employees. To sum up, when the employees are allowed autonomy, when they are provided reasonable salary and conducive workplace, and when the company does not interfere with their moral development, one can say that Kant’s theory of categorical imperative is accepted in spirit. II Principles of affirmative action are the principles which are intended to increase the representation of women and minorities in workplace, education, and business, where they have been facing discrimination and exclusion over decades. Thus, by allowing preferential treatment based on race, gender, and ethnicity, affirmative action principles arouse controversy. However, it seems that the proponents of affirmative action do so for several reasons. For example, Judith Jarvis Thomson who wrote ‘Preferential Hiring’ in 1973 support job preferences for African-American women as a compensation for the torture and exclusion they faced in employment and education in the past. On the other hand, for Thomas Nagel, who wrote ‘Equal Treatment and Compensatory Justice’, preferences will work as a kind of social good, and they will not violate justice. The concept of affirmative action took birth during the Civil War as a response to the effects of slavery. Government started Freeman’s Bureau to ensure benefits to racial minorities, thus clearly indicating affirmative action. However, the first explicit use of the term ‘affirmative action’ is seen in the National Labor Relations Act, of 1935. However, the term was used to indicate the discriminated union members and union organizers. It was John F. Kennedy who used the term in the racial context in 1961. Affirmative action appears in many forms including rigid quotas and targeted outreach encouraging minorities to apply. In essence, adopting affirmative action in workplace refers to departing from standard meritocratic selection criteria to show undue favor to the discriminated. However, applying the principles in the workplace means a lot of issues. First of all, it violates the right of people to equal consideration. In addition, it will result in the exclusion of the more competent ones for the inclusion of a less competent one. This means business will be forced to adopt a less competent and less skilled workforce in the name of doing social good. Furthermore, this will lead to denying the right to equal opportunity for everyone. However, the defendants of affirmative action too are able to attach justice with affirmative action. According to them, in the world where gender discrimination is a well recognized form of oppression, and where years of struggle has not effected considerable change in the situation, gender preferences will only improve the overall fairness of job selections. For example, Warren (256) claims that if males’ careers are temporarily set back because of job preferences shown towards women, preference given to women is good because it stops men from benefiting from sexist discrimination against women in future; on the other hand, if women are given preference, it will help reduce the sexist attitudes they face in future. Another strong supporting point is that racial preferences are the devices that will help neutralize the unearned advantages by whites. According to this class of thought, the higher qualifications and credentials of white applicants do not indicate their better ability, but only their luck at being born white. Another important point in favor of affirmative action is the claim of diversity. According to this class of thought, society as a whole gets benefited when affirmative action is used to maintain diverse schools, workplaces, and businesses. To illustrate, when people from different cultures, genders, and backgrounds come together, they bring additional skills, thus collectively nourishing the place where they work and learn. However, there is doubt among many scholars that though diversity is a social benefit, whether it is wise to achieve diversity at the cost of quality. In total, it becomes evident that most of the arguments go against affirmative action. According to the opponents, it is illogical to allocate social benefits on the basis of unchangeable characteristics like gender and race. In addition, it is alleged that affirmative action itself is a form of discrimination. Thus, the allegation goes that affirmative action acts as a ‘reverse discrimination’. On the other hand, those who support affirmative action are of the opinion that the purpose of affirmative action is not to harm the white majority, but to provide social justice for those who have been deprived throughout history. Presently, the situation is that when someone is recruited and selected for positions through affirmative action programs, the public’s general view is that the person is only selected because of gender or race. However, as Fowler states, if it is publicized that gender or race is not the sole criterion for selection, and that merit and qualification too are given adequate attention, there will be a considerable decline in the stigma associated with such selections. However, the affirmative action that calls for setting lower standards in education and employment is sure to create more and more issues in future as this cannot be seen as a rational remedy for the issue of discrimination. Works Cited Warren, Mary. M. “Secondary Sexism and Quota Hiring”, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 6 (Spring), 1977. 256 Fowler, Kevin T. ‘Affirmative Action for the Better’. Web. 23 May 2011 Nagel, Thomas. “Equal Treatment and Compensatory Discrimination”. Philosophy & Public Affairs. 2, (4), Summer 1973. 348-363 Schuster, John P., Carpenter, Jill and Kane, Patricia. The open-book management field book. Canada: John Wiley & Sons, 1998. Print. Thomson, Judith Jarvis. “Preferential Hiring”. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 2 (4), Summer 1973, 364-384. Read More