Moral Relativism in Business Ethics - Book Report/Review Example

Moral Relativism in Business Ethics Introduction Moral relativism is a theoretical principle about the truth or nature of morality. Scholars claimed that their investigations of different cultures have allowed them to prove that morality is specific to each culture, which means that it is not right to morally judge members of other cultures apart from their own cultural values (Guy 1990). When moral relativism is understood in a moral way, it seems to be exposed to various criticisms. For instance, it is argued that the doctrine is logically incoherent, for it assumes that all principles are specific or relative while simultaneously arguing, in absolutist way, that it is inappropriate—at all times and in all places—to be prejudiced of ‘other’ cultures (Rosenthal & Buchholz 2000). Simply put, relativists are criticized of supporting the argument that all moral principles and actions are relative but afterward shifting into absolutism with regard to one principle, tolerance (Rosenthal & Buchholz 2000). Moral relativism is most appropriately defined as a description of the correct way to develop moral values: these values require a relativizing component that indicates the range of their application (Schear 2010). This is, therefore, what moral relativism implies. Hence, relativism claims that we are committing an error if we raise our own moral values to evaluate people of other cultures, unless, obviously, they also adopt those values (Schear 2010). However, are relativists required to declare that an individual who commits this mistake is being prejudiced? They are required, apparently, to declare that such an individual is culpable of ethnocentrism, because of the concept of ethnocentrism was developed for specifically this idea (Rosenthal & Buchholz 2000). Still, committing ethnocentrism is not in any way similar to committing intolerance. Ethnocentrism, basically, is not to be understood as a moral fault, but an intellectual weakness (Rosenthal & Buchholz 2000). Thus, when relativists declare that we committed ethnocentrism, they are not claiming we have breached a moral value. In that case, it is inaccurate to think of moral relativism in a moral way. It does not deserve a moral denigration; hence it also does not deserve a rigid moral disapproval. Therefore, those critics are erroneous in arguing that relativists are logically incoherent. It is obviously untrue that relativists support the universal theory that moral principles and actions are relative but afterwards shift into moral absolutism with regard to one principle, tolerance. Moral Relativism in Business Ethics The prevailing kind of morality functional among businesses nowadays is captured by the concept of moral relativism. It is distinguished by an absence of thought about what an individual personally considers moral; rather, there is a search outward for what other people believe is right and wrong (Guy 1990). This principle is pursued on the workplace, even when its values strongly contradict those that the individual follows outside the job (Browne, Kubasek & Giampetro-Meyer 1995). The studies of organizational researchers argue for the presence of moral relativism in somewhat distinctive language. They argue that the major influence on organizational behavior is the organizational culture (Browne et al. 1995). And workers are aware that they are expected to abide by these rules and will be recognized for such compliance. The application of moral relativism by businesses was probably most evidently shown by the study of Robert Jackall (1988) on corporate managers’ behavior. Jackall (1988) visited several companies to investigate the ways through which the corporate system influenced the moral principles and actions of managers, and these managers’ occupational ethics. What he discovered could be summarized as, “What is right in the corporation is what the guy above you wants from you” (Jackall, 1988, 6). Alongside, it is important to be a cooperative member of an organization. The manager, to survive in an organization, should determine what his boss expects and wants, and afterward do whatever is needed to realize the goals of the boss as practically as necessary. When confronted with a moral issue, an individual tries to strip the issue of anything such as the obligations that characterize the thoughtful moral self and instead reflects on what outcome would be most similar to the aims of one’s organization (Schear 2010). Vital to being capable of responding in such a way is the capability of detaching oneself from the outcomes of one’s decisions or actions (Schear 2010). By converting individual actions into group actions, and hence keeping managers from experiencing personal liability for the outcomes of their actions, the organization further transforms moral issues into issues of what is in the best interest of the organization (Rosenthal & Buchholz 2000). Hence, the excellent business manager recognizes the objectives of his superior and does whatever is needed to realize those objectives. One may hence embark on behaviors that one would think inappropriate, even morally wrong, outside the organization, but these behaviors are tolerable within the organization because what is moral is what an organization’s superior wants. The study shown in Moral Mazes was conducted in the 1980s. With the growing investments of business colleges to the ethical training of managers, one may rightfully challenge whether moral relativism has been transformed by this training (Browne et al. 1995). A research featured in the California Management Review reports that considerably little has altered since the 1980s (Browne et al. 1995). Badaracco and Webb’s in-depth interviews with Harvard MBA graduates reported that moral relativism is business managers’ modal ethical code nowadays (Brown et al. 1995). The organizational cultures of the companies where the respondents are employed seemed to be governed by four vital organizational standards (Brown et al. 1995): (1) performance is what counts, so be sure you make your numbers; (2) be loyal and show you are a team player; (3) do not break the law; and (4) do not overinvest in ethical behavior (p. 24). Today’s business managers learned to keep away from punishment by performing their work tasks, and following their superiors. Several of the interviewed managers expressed anxiety over the outcomes of ‘doing the right thing, (Schear 2010, 117)’ hence obviously proving conflict between the moral norms they espoused at home and those that they would follow on their job. Other investigations similarly have discovered that managers usually experience tension at work to surrender their personal values (Rosenthal & Buchholz 2000). Even more current proofs, that this type of behavior is surviving and well in organizations in the United States at present, arises from the Bausch and Lomb scandal exposed in 1995 (Rosenthal & Buchholz 2000). Reporters of Business Week publicized that the CEO’s demands on managers to sustain high sales and revenues prompted unethical behavior all over the organization (Rosenthal & Buchholz 2000). Forced to sustain high profits, mainly by compensation system depending greatly on realizing these objectives, managers carried out what was convenient, even when such actions were unethical or illegal, such as granting customers unusually long payment contracts, pressuring distributors, supporting black markets, and transporting products before they were ordered and declaring these deliveries as sales (Schear 2010). The actions of these managers of Bausch and Lomb are in agreement with previous studies claiming that an organization’s reward system can “influence the ethical/unethical behavior of its members through specific rewards and punishment” (Schear 2010, 27). Therefore, a form of corporate moral relativism is present in organizations nowadays. It is relativism wherein what is appropriate and inappropriate or what is right and wrong is established by what those corporate elites declare is right or wrong. And in many organizations, it may be summarized by the passage, “whatever it takes to get the job done” (Browne et al. 1995, 24). The core obligation of the manager, as a moral agent, is to identify and conform to the organizational culture. References Browne, M.N., Nancy Kubasek & Andrea Giampetro-Meyer. “The Seductive Danger of Craft Ethics for Business Organizations”, Review of Business, 1995, p. 23+ Guy, M.E. Ethical Decision Making in Everyday Work Situations. Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 1990. Jackall, R. Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Rosenthal, S.B. & Rogene Buchholz. Rethinking Business Ethics: A Pragmatic Approach. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Schear, T.H. Interactive Ethics: How Ethical and Unethical Decisions are Really Made in Organizations. Florida: Universal Publishers, 2010. Read More