The Moral Responsibilities of the Businesses - Essay Example

The Moral Responsibilities of Businesses with regard to the Future of Human Race and the Environment The question of whether or not business organizations have moral responsibility with regard to the future human race and the environment is a controversial issue. Philosophers are dividend on this issue. Some philosophers think that businesses have no moral obligation whatsoever, while other philosophers are of the view that businesses have moral obligation with regard to the future of human race and the environment. This paper reviews this debate and demonstrates that businesses do indeed have moral obligation towards the future of human race. To find out whether or not business organizations have obligation towards the future human race, we will first of all look at the issue in light of the various theories of ethics that we have studied in class. Secondly, we will critically review the existing arguments for and against business organizations having moral responsibility towards the future generation. After the critical review of the debate, it will be shown that business organizations indeed do have obligation towards the future human race. After demonstrating that, indeed, business organizations have responsibility towards the future human race and the environment, I have given various examples of the obligations that business organizations have towards the future human race and the environment. In demonstrating that business organizations have moral responsibility towards the future of human race, I have taken into account the social and the ethical questions raised by the bioengineering genetically modified food. The paper ends with a conclusion that sums up the argument that is advanced in the paper. Before we look at whether or not or not businesses have responsibility towards the future human race in light of the various theories of ethics that we have studied in class, it is important to note that this debate is related intimately with the debate of whether human beings have any moral obligation towards the future generation. The same arguments advanced for and against the debate of whether or not human beings have moral obligation towards the future generation of human race are the same arguments that are applied in the debate of whether or not businesses have obligation towards the future human race and the environment. Having said that, let us look at this debate in light of the various theories of ethics that we have studied in class. The main gist of the debate of whether or not businesses have moral responsibilities to the future human generations lies on whether business moral obligations extends into the future, to the human beings who do not yet exist. The philosophical problem of this moral issue lies in the fact that, although the future human race does not yet exist, the general life of the future human race will be affected by the current actions of business organizations. The philosophical question therefore is, although the future human race does not exist and we don’t know them, don’t business organizations have moral obligation to ensure that that they conduct their businesses in a manner that endanger or ruin the lives of the future generations? This question is quite important considering the fact that the future generation of human beings will be human beings like us, i.e. they will be people with inherent dignity and rights like us. This question, however, raises important philosophical issues that should be taken into account in judging whether or not business organizations have moral obligations with regard to the future human race. The following is an analysis of this debate in light of the various theories of ethics that we have studied in class. To begin with, let us look at this debate in light of the consequentialist theory of ethics. As we have studied in class, the criterion of judging the morality of an action in business according to this theory is the consequence of the action. The consequentialist approach to business views the overriding aim of business as making profit. Consequently, the consequentialist theory of ethics holds that in making moral decisions in business, we should take the action that will lead to more profits. This view is perfectly in line with the consequentialist moral maxim of choosing actions that will result in happiness for the majority of people. In judging in light of the consequentialist ethical perspective whether or not business organizations have moral obligation towards the future human race, we should be guided by whether or not such an obligation will mean an increase in a business organization’s profits. According to the consequentialist view of business, we only have obligations to actions that will promote the profits of the business organization that we are working for. For this reason, therefore, since caring for the future generations will not increase the profits of business organizations, businesses do not have any moral obligation towards the future human race and the environment. A critical look at the consequentialist view of whether or not business organizations have moral responsibility towards the future generation shows that the consequentialist view doesn’t take into account the interests of the future generations. For this reason, therefore, the consequentialist view of this issue is false because it doesn’t give reason why business organization don’t have moral responsibility towards the future human race. The argument that businesses do not have obligation towards the future generation simply because such a responsibility doesn’t serve the interest and the aim of the businesses is not at all a good strong argument. A good argument that supports the view that businesses do not have obligation toward the future human race should explain how taking actions, by the businesses, that will harm the future human race can be morally justified. The consequentialist view of this issue doesn’t give such justification. Having looked at the Consequentialist approach to businesses, let us look at the deontological approach to businesses. As we have seen in class, the deontological theory of ethics basis the determination of the morality of an action in business on whether or not the action is in accordance with the business organization’s duties and obligations. On the issue of whether or not business organisations have a moral obligation towards the future generations, the deontologist would argue that we can have such an obligation if, and only if, caring for the future generations is part of our duty. A critical view at the deontological view of our topic of discussion shows that the deontological view does not tell us whether or not we have the obligation or the duty towards the future generation of human race. Unlike the consequentialist view of this issue, however, the deontological view does not deny that we can have such a responsibility; the deontological view is neutral and leaves room for any possibility. The other ethical approach that we have looked at in class is the Aristotelian virtue ethics. According to virtue ethics, the morality of an action is determined by the moral agent performing the action. In other words, an action is regarded morally right if it is performed by a person with a virtuous character, and conversely, an action is regarded morally wrong if it is performed by a person with vicious character. In virtue ethics, the criteria of judging the morality of human actions is an intelligent moral agent with good character formation; this means that in resolving moral dilemmas, we should ask ourselves the following question, what would an intelligent moral agent with good character formation do in this situation? How would he/she resolve this dilemma? When applied to the field of business, virtue ethics hold that we should judge the morality of actions performed in business based on the motive of the doer of the act. In regard to whether or not business organizations have moral obligation in regard to the future generation, a proponent of virtue ethics would contend that we should answer this question in light of how an intelligent moral agent with good character formation would answer it. A critical analysis of the virtue ethics view of whether or not businesses have responsibility towards the future generation and the environment shows that the virtue ethics view does not actually answer whether or not business organizations have moral responsibility towards the future human race. According to the virtue ethics view, such a decision can only be made by an intelligent moral agent with good character formation. The other ethical theory that we have looked at in class is the Divine Command Theory. According to Divine command theory, the determinant of the morality of an action is whether or not the action is congruent with God’s commands. In this sense, an action is regarded as being morally right if it is in conformity with God’s commands, and morally wrong if it is contrary to God’s commands. In business activities, the Divine command theory states that when we are faced with moral dilemma, we should choose actions that are in line with the commands of God. On whether or not business organizations have an obligation towards the future generation and the environment, a divine command theorist would contend that we can only have such an obligation if God has commanded so. For that reason, therefore, to know whether or not business organizations have such an obligation, we should seek to know if God has commanded us to mind about the future generation and the environment. The main limitation with the divine command view of whether or not business organizations have responsibility towards the future generation of human race is that the divine command view does not offer us an objective criterion of how we are to know, whether or not God has commanded us to care for the future generation of human race, and to avoid actions that may jeopardize their interests. The other ethical theory that we have studied in class is the Ethical Relativism. According to ethical relativism, there is no objective standard of judging morality of human actions. For that reason, therefore, ethics is purely subjective according to this ethical system. The determiner of the morality of an action according to this moral theory, therefore, is the individual person who is making the moral judgment. When applied to the field of business, ethical relativism holds that the morality of actions in businesses should be determined by the managers of a business organization. What this means in essence is that as long as the managers of a business organization judge a given action or decision made in the business as morally right or morally wrong, the action or the decision should be regarded as so because there is no universals standard of judging morality of human actions. On the issue of whether or not business organizations have obligation towards the future generation and the environment, the proponents of the relativism ethical theory would argue that if the managers of a given business organization are of the view that business organizations have such an obligation, then the business organization that the managers lead would have the obligation towards the future generation and the environment. On the other hand, if the managers of a business organization are of the view that business organizations do not have moral obligation towards the future generation and the environment, then the business organization that the managers lead would not have any obligation towards the future generation of human race and the environment. The main weakness with the relativism view of whether or not business organizations have responsibility towards the future generation is that the relativism view does not offer us any standard of knowing whether really business organizations have any responsibility towards the future generation. By leaving it up to the managers of business organizations to decide whether or not businesses have obligation towards the future generation, the relativism view doesn’t answer the question of our topic definitively. Having looked at the question of whether or not business organizations have obligation towards the future generation and the environment in light of the ethical theories that we studied in class, let us review the main arguments that can be offered in support of and against the view that business organizations have obligation towards the future generation and the environment. To begin with, let us look at the arguments advance in support of the view that business organizations do not have obligation towards the future human race and the environment. One of the main arguments advanced in opposition to the view that business organizations have obligation towards the future generations and the environment is the view that since the future human generation does not exist and we even don’t know them, business organizations do not any moral obligation towards them. This argument is known as argument from temporal location (Nolt, web). The argument can be expressed as follows. First premise: future human race does not exist. Second premise: we do not have moral obligation towards non-existent things. Conclusion: we do not have moral obligation towards future generation. An analysis of this argument from a logical point of view shows that the argument is indeed valid. This is because the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. The argument, however, is unsound because the second premise is untrue. This is because it isn’t true that we do not have obligation towards the non-existent things. Experience has shows us that we really have moral obligation towards the non-existent things. For instance, young people save their earnings so as to be able to meet the financial needs of their future generations. If human beings do not really care about non-existent things, then the young people would not mind about their future children and they would just use up all their earnings. This fact, therefore, shows that the argument that the business organizations do not have moral obligation to the future generation and the environment simply because the future human race does not exist is unsound argument. The second argument that is advanced against the view that business organizations have obligation towards the future human race and the environment is the argument that, business organizations do not have obligation towards the future generation simply because we do not know how the future generation of human beings will be like, and what their needs will be. For that reason, business organizations have no obligation towards the future generation of human race and the environment. This argument can be expressed as follows. First premise: business organizations can only have an obligation of beings if we know how those beings look like and what their needs are. Second premise: it is not possible to know what the future human race will be like or what their desires will be. Conclusion: business organizations have no obligation to future human race. This argument is known as argument from ignorance. From a logical point of view, this argument is valid. This is because the conclusion flows necessarily from the premises. The argument, however, is unsound because the second premise of the argument is false. The first premise is true because, if we absolutely no nothing about the future generation of human race, i.e. if we do not what their needs and desires will be like, then we would have no basis on which to act in a morally responsible manner toward them. The second argument, however, is false because we can know a great deal about the needs, the desires, and the aspirations of the future human race. For instance, since we know for sure that the future human race will be rational creatures with biological needs, we can be certain that they will need the basic human needs that we ourselves need. For that reason, the future human race will need food, shelter, and clothing. We can also be sure that they will need clean water and uncontaminated air. Again, we can be certain that the future generation of human race will need. We can also be certain that the future generation will need an environment that is not contaminated with the radioactive wastes or other toxic substances. For this reason, therefore, it is quite clear that we know a lot about the needs and the desires of the future human generation, and for that reason we should act responsibly towards them. This fact, therefore, shows that the argument from ignorance is flawed and false. The third argument against caring for the future human generation is the argument that it is not possible for us to benefit the distant future human race. This argument is called the disappearing beneficiary argument (Nolt, web). The argument can be summarized as follows. First premise: Different actions or different choices that we make today will result in different people living in the distant future. Premise two: when different choices result in different people, we cannot make any particular person better or worse. Third premise (Inference): we cannot make any particular person in the future generation better or worse (this premise flows necessarily from premise one and premise two). Premise four: we only have obligation to those we can make better or worse. Conclusion: we have no obligation towards the future generation. A logical analysis of this argument shows that the argument is not sound. To begin with, although the inference from the first and the second premise is valid, the second premise, however, is not true. That is because it is actually possible to make a person’s life worse off than if they never existed. That is because it is better for a person not to exist in the first place, than to exist and to live unbearable life because of the decisions and the choices made by the past human race generations. This fact, therefore, shows that the second premise is false. The other problem with this argument is that the conclusion drawn from premises three and four is invalid. This is because premise three and four are particular premises, while the conclusion is universal. This clearly is a formal logical fallacy. For this reason, therefore, is false from the logical point of view. Having looked at the main argument advanced in opposition to the view that business organizations have obligation towards the future generation and the environment, let us look at the main argument advanced in support of the view that business organizations have obligation towards the future human race. The main argument advanced in support of the view that business organizations have a moral responsibility towards the future human race is based on the notion that the future human race will not be in any morally relevant respect different from the current human generations. According to this argument, the time when one is born has no moral significance to the person just like tribe, race, gender or religion; these are accidental factors that do not have any relevance to the morality of human person. Since, therefore, we have moral responsibility towards the living people, there is no reason why we should not have moral responsibility towards the future generation of human race. This argument is expressed as follows. First premise: we have obligation to the currently living human beings Second Premise: Future human race will be in no morally relevant respect different from the currently living people Conclusion: we have moral obligation towards the future generation of human race A logical analysis of this argument shows that the argument is indeed valid and sound. The argument is valid because the conclusion flows naturally from the premises. The argument also is sound because the first and the second premises are true. The first premise is true because, of course, we have moral obligation towards the currently living people. The second premise also is true because we absolutely have no reason to believe that the future generation of human race will be in morally relevant respect different from us. This fact, therefore, shows that, while there is no sound argument in opposition to the idea that we have moral obligation towards the future generation of human race, there is, indeed, a sound argument is support of the idea that we have moral obligation towards the future generation of human race. Having demonstrated rationally that business organizations have obligation towards the future generation of human race, let us support this idea further by looking at the social and ethical questions raised by bioengineering biologically modified organisms. One of the ethical question raised by the bioengineering biologically modified organisms is whether business organizations have the right to own life. Since the development of biologically modified organisms involve a lot of research and effort, those who come up with genetically modified organisms are bound to seek patent for their discoveries. The problem of getting patent for a genetically modified organism is that the patent means that you own the organism, or to be specific you own the life of the organism. This raises important moral question because owning life of an organism is tantamount to owning natural resources like the sun or the moon. If business organizations are allowed to own life, this means that they have right to do anything with the life of that organism and the misuse of such organism can lead to problems to the future generations of human life. The second ethical issues raised by the bioengineering of biologically modified organisms is that the biologically modified organisms can bring about health risks to the living organisms. For instance, the biological weapons pose a real danger to human race. This in effect means that the biologically modified organisms can pose a real danger to the future generations of human race. The third ethical and social issue associated with the bioengineering of biologically modified organisms is that the biologically modified organisms may have a long term negative effect on the environment. This in effect means that the bioengineering of biologically modified organisms poses a real danger to the future generation of human race. In conclusion, therefore, the ethical and the social issues raised by the bioengineering of biologically modified organisms shows that business organizations have moral obligation towards the future generation of human race. Having reviewed and demonstrated that business organizations have responsibilities towards the future generation of human race, let us demonstrate that this moral responsibility can be supported by a number of ethical theories. In our application of the consequentialist theory of ethics on the issue of whether or not business organizations have moral responsibility towards the future generation of human race, we found that the consequentialist view of ethics denies such responsibility. A critical look at the main tenets of the consequentialist theory of ethics viz-a-viz the consequences of not business organizations acting carelessly in regard to the interests of the future generation of human race shows that the idea of business oganizations having a moral responsibility towards the future generation can be supported by a consequentialist view of businesses. This is because, as we saw in class, the consequentialist theory ofethics hold that in making moral decisions, we should choose the action that will result in happiness for the majority of people. In this regard, therefore, although having moral responsibility for the future generation of human race by the business organizations will not directly benefit the stake-holders of the business organizations, the action, however, will benefit the majority of people, i.e. the people in the future generation of human race. This fact, therefore, shows that the consequentialist view of ethics may not be, at all, opposed to the idea that business organizations have moral responsibility towards the future generation of human race. The idea that business organizations have moral responsibility towards the future generation of human race can also be defended from the deontological ethics point of view. Even though in our analysis of the application of deontological ethics on whether or not business organizations have moral responsibility towards the future generation of human race and the environment, we said that the deontological view of ethics does not give a definitive answer, this idea can be defended from the deontological ethics point of view. This is because, since we have demonstrated that business organizations do, actually, have moral obligation towards the future generation of human race, this in effect means that business organization have a moral duty to mind the interests of the future generation of human race. Thirdly, the idea that business organizations have obligation towards the future generation of human race can be defended from the point of view of divine command theory of ethics. Although, the divine command theory does not definitively tell us whether or not businesses have moral obligation towards the future generation of human race, a critical look at this issues shows that obligation toward the future generation of human race is, indeed, a part of divine command. This is because caring for the other people and caring for the environment is part of God’s commands to His people. Again, the idea that business organizations have moral responsibility towards the future generation can be defended from the virtue ethics point of view. This is because, although, virtue ethics does not provide the answer to whether or not business organizations have moral responsibility towards the future generation of human race, virtue ethics, however, support the idea that we should care for other people. For this reason, therefore, this idea can be defended from the virtue ethics point of view. Having looked at the idea that businesses have moral responsibility towards the future generation of human race, let us look at the obligation that business organizations have towards the future generation of human race and the environment. The main responsibility that business organizations have towards the future generation of human race and the environment is to conserve the environment and not to abuse it. This is because, as we have emphasized in this paper, since the future generation of human race will be human beings just like us, they will be in need of clean water, fresh air, and food. The future generation of human race cannot be guaranteed these things if the business organizations exploit and misuse the environment with the sole aim of maximizing the profits. Although business organizations want to develop and to make maximum profits, they should develop in a sustainable way as we have seen in class. There are, a number of measures, therefore, that business organizations can take to ensure that the livelihood of the future generation of human life is not jeopardized. The first obligation that business organizations have is to preserve the natural environment. Business organizations should not, for instance, destroy the wilderness or the forests. Destruction of the forests will lead to desertification of the world; the desertification of the world will in effect have dire consequences to the future generation of human race. Businesses, therefore, should conserve the environment well by planting more trees for the sake of the future generation of human race. The second obligation that business organizations have towards the future of human generation is to avoid abusing the environment through carbon emissions. Carbon emissions lead to global warming which has devastating consequences for all biological lives on planet earth. Due to industrialization, however, we find that many business organizations are continually using fossil fuels as sources of energy, without minding about the consequences that their actions have on the environment. Business organizations, therefore, have moral obligation to ensure that they reduce use of sources of energy that emit carbon to the environment. Thirdly, as we have seen in this paper, business organizations should be careful in using bioengineering technology. Although bioengineering technology has immense potential of improving the life of human beings, bioengineering technology, also, poses a real danger to human life. For that reason, therefore, business organizations have a moral responsibility to ensure that they do not develop biologically modified organisms that pose a danger to human life, like the biological weapons and the virus that cause harm to human beings. Just like the bioengineering technology, nuclear technology, also, has immense potential of improving the life of human person. Nuclear technology, however, poses a real danger to human life. Nuclear weapons have the ability to cause a real and a permanent damage to the environment. Also, nuclear waste should be disposed of carefully to avoid abusing the environment. Business organizations, therefore, have a responsibility of not using the nuclear technology to develop weapons, and they also have a responsibility of disposing of the nuclear waste well. In conclusion, therefore, business organizations have a moral responsibility to the future generation of human race and the environment. This responsibility can be defended from the perspective of various theories of ethics that we have studied in class. The moral responsibility that business organizations have towards the future generation of human race entails prudent use of natural resources to avoid exploiting the environment. References Class Notes. Nolt, J. “Arguments for and Against Obligations to Future Generations”. Web. Read More