The Formula of the Universal Law

First, there is the formulation Kant regards as most basic: "act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law." As we discussed in class, the test for the morality of an action that Kant expresses here is something like the following. Suppose that I am trying to decide whether or not to perform a particular action, say A. Then I must go through the following steps: 1. Formulate the maxim of the action. That is, figure out what general principle you would be acting on if you were to perform the action. The maxim will have something like this form: "in situations of sort S, I will do A." (For example: "in situations in which I am thirsty and there is water available, I will drink it," or "in situations in which I need money and know I can't pay it back, I will falsely promise to pay it back.") 2. Universalize the maxim. That is, regard it not as a personal policy but as a principle for everyone. A universalized maxim will look something like this: "in situations of sort S, everyone will do A." (For example: "in situations in which anyone is thirsty and water is available, that person will drink it," or "in situations in which anyone needs money and knows he or she cannot pay it back, he or she will falsely promise to pay it back." 3. Determine whether the universalized maxim could be a universal law, that is, whether it is possible for everyone to act as the universalized maxim requires. (Our first example seems harmless, but Kant argues that the second maxim could not be a universal law: if everyone started making false promises, the institution of promising would disappear, so no one would be able to make a false promises, since there would be no such thing as a promise to falsely make.) If the universalized maxim could not be a universal law, you have a perfect obligation not to perform the action. 4. But perhaps the maxim could be a universal law. Then we need to ask a further question: could we will that the maxim be a universal law? (For example, Kant thinks that it could be the case that everyone refused to ever help others in distress, but that we could not will that this be the case because that would mean no one would help us when we were in distress. See his fourth example.) If the maxim could be a universal law, but you could not will that it be a universal law, you have an imperfect duty not to perform the action.

The Formula of the End in Itself

The second formulation that is important for us is the formula of the end in itself: roughly, "act so as to treat people always as ends in themselves, never as mere means." The idea here is that everyone, insofar as he or she is a rational being, is intrinsically valuable; we ought therefore to treat people as having a value all their own rather than merely as useful tools or devices by means of which we can satisfy our own goals or purposes. Other people are valuable not merely insofar as they can serve our purposes; they are also valuable in themselves.

Note that the formula does not rule out all cases of using someone else to satisfy my own desires or projects. That would seem to eliminate a very large number of human interactions! Treating others as mere means, treating them only as devices we can use to help us satisfy our desires, seems a clear enough notion; certain kinds of corporate and sexual relationships seem like clear examples of it. But what would it be to treat someone as an end in him or herself? Kant's idea seems to be that we treat someone as an end only insofar as we act toward him or her in a way that he or she can understand as appropriate or justified: we should be able to explain our reasons in such a way that the person will see the reasonableness of acting in the way we propose. Thus, for example, Kant writes: "he who is thinking of making a lying promise to others will see at once that he would be using another man merely as a mean, without the latter containing at the same time the end in himself. For he whom I propose by such a promise to use for my own purposes cannot possibly assent to my mode of acting towards him, and therefore cannot himself contain the end of this action." What is ruled out by this formulation, therefore, appears to be actions which treat others in such a way that they do not have the opportunity to consent to what we are doing. So we treat others as mere means when we force them to do something, or when we obtain their consent through coercion or dishonesty.

Normative Ethics
Normative ethics is perhaps the largest branch of ethics, and it deals with how individuals can figure out what is the correct moral action that they should take. The branch seeks to discover moral principles that individuals should always follow. Such philosophers as Socrates and John Stuart Mill are classified in normative ethics. The writings in normative ethics usually contain a theory about the correct action for people to take. For example:

Consequentialism in normative ethics believes that if an action results in a good outcome, then the action is moral. Individuals should make choices based on the end results. Pragmatism in normative ethics believes that what has happened over the course of many lifetimes is what designates moral correctness. Deontologism in normative ethics believes that decisions should be made based on one person's duties and another person's rights.

Meta-Ethics
Meta-ethics seeks to understand the nature of ethical properties and judgements. Specifically, meta-ethics examines if truth values can be found, and the theory behind moral proposals. Most philosophers consider G.E. Moores Principia Ethica to be the origin of meta-ethics. Perhaps G.E. Moore is most famous for suggesting the idea of the naturalistic fallacy. According

to Moore, the naturalistic fallacy occurred in ethics when an author or philosopher tried to prove their ethical declarations using words created by society such as good, or desirable. Examples of meta-ethical problems include:

Defending and supporting a moral judgement Understanding the meaning of moral judgements Knowing the nature of moral judgements

Moore and other supporters of meta-ethics do not believe that "good" is a definable term, and that it cannot be used to prove any statements.

Applied Ethics
Applied ethics is the study of applying theories from philosophers regarding ethics in everyday life. For example, the disciple of applied ethics includes both bioethics and business ethics to name a few areas. This area of ethics might ask questions such as:

Is right for an individual to have an abortion? Should you turn in your friend at your workplace for taking home office supplies? Is capital punishment a correct legal judgement?

This branch of ethics attempts to use the theories proposed by such philosophers as John Locke, or Kant to answer questions that affect individuals every day.

Moral Ethics
Moral ethics, often called moral psychology, questions how individuals develop their morality, and if morality develops the same way for the majority of human beings. This branch of ethics questions why certain aspects of morality differ from culture to culture, and why certain aspects of morality are generally universal. This branch of ethics looks at:

The notion of moral responsibility and attempts to universally define it Concepts such as moral character The notion of altruism

The moral ethics branch might ask questions such as:

Can religion-owned business be required to provide health care benefits that are contrary to their religious beliefs?

Can public lands be used to practice religion? Is demonstration legal because it is free speech?

Since morality is a concept that is somewhat unique to human beings, this branch seeks to define exactly how morality evolved in humans.

Descriptive Ethics
Descriptive ethics tries to focus on how human beings actually operate in the real world, rather than attempt to theorize about how they should operate. Descriptive ethics:

Gathers information and observations about what the choices that people actually make Reviews whether individuals make the same choices in different circumstances Deals with topics of situational ethics such as why does an individual steal in one situation, and does not steal in another situation

Descriptive ethics attempts to be more scientific in its approach, rather than philosophical or theoretical. Five Major Ethical Systems 1) Utilitarian Theory Moral standards are applied to the outcome of an action or decision; the principle is that everyone should act to generate the greatest benefits for the largest number of people. 2) Universalist Theory Moral standards are applied to the intent of an action or decision; the principle is that everyone should act to ensure that similar decisions would be reached by others, given similar circumstances. 3) Distributive Justice Moral standards are based upon the primacy of a single value, which is justice. Everyone should act to ensure a more equitable distribution of benefits, for this promotes individual self-respect, which is essential for social cooperation. 4) Personal Liberty

Moral standards are based upon the primacy of a single value, which is liberty. Everyone should act to ensure greater freedom of choice, for this promotes market exchange, which is essential for social productivity. 5) Eternal Law Moral standards are given in an Eternal Law, which is revealed in Scripture or apparent in nature and then interpreted by religious leaders or humanist philosophers; the belief is that everyone should act in accordance with the interpretation.

Building an Ethical Work Culture in Indian Organizations

The Business Enterprise magazine published this article in July 2011 issue I have often pondered on whether adults can be taught ethics. As per crime triangle a person commits a crime when three factors are present opportunity, reward and rationalization. Hence, if the opportunity is available with a lucrative reward, psychologically a person can rationalize a crime. Due to this, in context of India, teaching business ethics is a seemingly impossible task. The psyche of the society shows that corruption is acceptable way of getting ahead in business. The 3.3 rating in Corruption Transparency Index indicates that people are unwilling to take a corruption and crime free road. In their minds there is no positive take-away or reward for becoming honest and ethical. Hence, the challenge is to change CXOs and employee perception about business ethics through promotion and prevention tactics. Every dark cloud has a silver lining. In light of recent corruption scandals in India, corporate honchos are now concerned about governance issues. Economic Times on 13 June 2011 published survey results on impact of scams on Indian economic growth. CXOs of 75 companies participated in the survey. 72% have that sinking feeling that this crisis in governance is going to hurt economic growth. A majority of those surveyed feel the situation is serious enough to affect their business and investment plans in some manner; and 15% expect their plans to take a major hit. In the scams Central Bureau of Investigation is investigating a few known groups ADAG, Tata, Essar, Unitech, Cisco etc. Corporate bigwigs have finally acknowledged that they are part of the problem. The survey states that - Some 72% of respondents to the ET-Ficci survey and 64% of the CXOs who responded to the ET-Synovate poll feel that business houses are also responsible for the crisis of corruption The business heads realization that both the supply and demand side parties are responsible for corruption and unethical behavior can down-rail economic growth of the country is a positive sign for business ethics managers in India. Finally, they can get budgets for business ethics programs and trainings approved. It is a good to strike while the iron is hot. Here are my top three focus areas for improving an ethics program

1. Build ethical culture into business processes and strategy

One of the business attitudes in India is that business cannot be done without paying bribes, hence receiving kickbacks is justified. The mindset is that an ethics program is not practical as

business will suffer. For business growth some compromises need to be done. This thinking makes a code of conduct a document without much strength. Ethical behavior is considered insignificant in evaluating managers performance. Hence, the need of the hour is to build ethical culture as part of business strategy. Processes for monitoring ethical behavior need to be implemented. For example, performance appraisals of employees should incorporate bonus points for the ethical means adopted to meet targets. If unethical methods are used to achieve targets some penalty points should be awarded. In recruitment itself, reject candidates who have falsified information even slightly. Next, in a few cases senior managers formulate strategies considering the political connections and propensity of politicians to accept bribes. Ethics managers must change this attitude of senior managers. Do this by assessing growth and risks on parameters of clean business operations. Present a business case to senior management emphasizing the political, legal and reputation risks in case unethical practices are adopted for implementing business strategies.

2. Change Mindset of Employees

In India, even a youngster will tell you that it is practical to be corrupt. If a person speaks of ethical behavior, the person is most likely to be viewed as an idealist with their head in the clouds. This cynicism makes it difficult to implement an ethical work culture. I could not find India specific data to illustrate my point. However, I did find a report Character Study Reveals Predictors of Lying and Cheating conducted by Josephson Institute. The results indicate that cynics are -Three times more likely to lie to a customer (22% vs. 7%), inflate an expense claim (13% v. 4%), or inflate an insurance claim (6% vs. 2%). Additionally, cynics are more than twice as likely to conceal or distort information when communicating with their boss (24% vs. 10%). India has a huge number of cynics. Unfortunately, the business cost of this cynical attitude is never analyzed by organizations. Organizations need to give ethics training to change perceptions and thinking. Providing classroom training or e-learning is not sufficient. Ethical training should involve group discussions, case studies, brown bag sessions and 1 to 1 meetings with senior managers to emphasize the importance of ethics. Secondly, ethics managers believe that once training is given their job is done. This thinking is incorrect. They should implement measurement and evaluation methods to judge the impact of training in employee behavior and decision-making. Lastly, ethics training is an ongoing process, not once in a blue moon session.

3. Make Code of Conduct Relevant

In my opinion, most of the organizations have a code of conduct that employees sign at the time of joining the organization. New recruits receive a brief overview of expected business conduct in the induction sessions. However, rarely organizations code of conduct is a living document. It is not unheard of that the code of conduct is too old and policies mentioned in it are not complying with the prevailing business and legal laws. The situation is that nobody bothered to update it regularly. Hence, these documents are not taken seriously.

In my view, this is a good time to review the code of conduct and implement the policies properly. For example, although organizations have sexual harassment policies, India reports one of the highest cases of sexual harassment. As per a recent report India is the fourth threatening country in the world for women. This clearly indicates that most organizations prohibit sexual harassment only in theory. As the procedures for filing a legal case are long drawn out with high social harassment, organizations may not feel the need to implement the policies. This definitely harms the ethical culture of the organization and the business environment of the country.

Closing thoughts
To make Indian organizations globally competitive at par with the multinationals building an ethical culture is a necessity. The war of talent is won by organizations that provide a comfortable and secure work culture to employees. Multinationals invest in organizations where they are sure of the ethics of the management teams. Customers prefer organizations fulfilling their corporate social responsibility. Look from any lens, adopting ethics pays in the long-run. This is the right time to do some internal selling and get management commitment for building an ethical work culture.