To what extent is Kantian ethics useful in the context of business ethics (40 marks)
Kant, believed that morality, in all spheres of human life, including business, should be grounded in
reason, and not emotion. He takes a rights-based approach to employment law and thinks universally.
His categorical imperative held that people should only act according to maxims that they would be
willing to see, become universal laws, and that people should never be treated as a means to an end.
His theory implies the necessity of trust, adherence to rules and keeping promises. In this essay I will
identify the issues surrounding busines. I will explain Kant’s theory and then evaluate whether this is
the best approach compared to another theory such as utilitarianism.
For Kant, duty is all-important and must be done through good will. His attitude to business is best
illustrated with his own example of the shopkeeper who does not overcharge his customers, not so
they will return to him due to his trustworthy reputation, but out of duty: honesty is his duty and so he
must be honest because it is his duty. Kant’s own father acted with good will in heated disputes
between saddle and harness makers’ guilds, and the tests of this adherence to duty are the three
formulations of the Categorical imperative. Duty outweighs all other considerations, including profit.
His ethics are those of duty rather than consequence: a business behaving morally in order to impress
consumers is not truly moral. The same idea applies to a whistle blower; the consequences such as
losing a job, are irrelevant as if an employer is acting unethically, the employee has a duty to expose
them if they are being corrupt or breaking the law. Therefore, for Kant emotions and consequences
are not considered. However, businesses using this approach, are strictly limited, in the basis that
businesses are set up, initially, for profit, as Milton Friedman argued that the only responsibility
businesses have is to make a profit for the shareholders. This means that it is inevitable that the
consumers will be used as a means to this, rather than doing it as a duty to provide the consumers with
goods, because if a company operated within a duty and not concerning profit, this would result to
closure of companies. An approach such as utilitarianism, of maximising the positive effects of the
business also ensuring the profit of the company, may be a more suitable approach. However, with
utilitarianism it focuses on the maximation of welfare to the greatest number of people, which tends to
alienate the minority. This could mean that utilitarianism would allow bribery, slavery, espionage, etc.
Therefore, Kantian ethics is seen as a more accepted approach due to everyone being treated more
equally.
Another issue of business is the relationship to the employees, where workers have a sense of duty
towards their employers and vice versa. In his taxonomy of duties, Kant stressed that human beings
have a duty to themselves to avoid being slavish to others; they have a duty to themselves to see that
their autonomy is respected. He also thought that making money for its own sake was wrong; avarice
is considered to be contrary to a person’s duty as a moral being. A greedy person is likely to be
irrational and led by their emotions, often doing immoral things in the pursuit of money. Kant’s
attitude to promise-keeping, which he uses it to explain the first formulation of the categorical
imperative, can also be applied to business: one person couldn’t sign a contract with the intention of
breaking it as this cannot be universally willed as contracts would cease to exist in their current form.
Companies must be completely honest in their dealings. Kant would also reject espionage, saying that
we have the perfect duty not to spy on others. Spying is self-contradictory, as if everyone did it there
would be no new ideas to steal. Applying the categorical imperative to business ethics shows that
Kant would reject the idea that a business’ main responsibility was to its shareholders, as this would
be treating humans merely as a means to an end. In Kant’s ethical framework, you need to imagine
yourself as a law- making member in a kingdom of ends, in example, considering all stakeholders.
The third formulation would see a business as a moral community- employers, employees,
stakeholders, shareholders- standing in a moral relationship with each other, which would influence
the way they treat each other. As a result, work must be meaningful, and business should be
democratic. This is a very useful approach, as it ensures equality within the workplace, and from this
duty, initially the business would profit.
Kant, believed that morality, in all spheres of human life, including business, should be grounded in
reason, and not emotion. He takes a rights-based approach to employment law and thinks universally.
His categorical imperative held that people should only act according to maxims that they would be
willing to see, become universal laws, and that people should never be treated as a means to an end.
His theory implies the necessity of trust, adherence to rules and keeping promises. In this essay I will
identify the issues surrounding busines. I will explain Kant’s theory and then evaluate whether this is
the best approach compared to another theory such as utilitarianism.
For Kant, duty is all-important and must be done through good will. His attitude to business is best
illustrated with his own example of the shopkeeper who does not overcharge his customers, not so
they will return to him due to his trustworthy reputation, but out of duty: honesty is his duty and so he
must be honest because it is his duty. Kant’s own father acted with good will in heated disputes
between saddle and harness makers’ guilds, and the tests of this adherence to duty are the three
formulations of the Categorical imperative. Duty outweighs all other considerations, including profit.
His ethics are those of duty rather than consequence: a business behaving morally in order to impress
consumers is not truly moral. The same idea applies to a whistle blower; the consequences such as
losing a job, are irrelevant as if an employer is acting unethically, the employee has a duty to expose
them if they are being corrupt or breaking the law. Therefore, for Kant emotions and consequences
are not considered. However, businesses using this approach, are strictly limited, in the basis that
businesses are set up, initially, for profit, as Milton Friedman argued that the only responsibility
businesses have is to make a profit for the shareholders. This means that it is inevitable that the
consumers will be used as a means to this, rather than doing it as a duty to provide the consumers with
goods, because if a company operated within a duty and not concerning profit, this would result to
closure of companies. An approach such as utilitarianism, of maximising the positive effects of the
business also ensuring the profit of the company, may be a more suitable approach. However, with
utilitarianism it focuses on the maximation of welfare to the greatest number of people, which tends to
alienate the minority. This could mean that utilitarianism would allow bribery, slavery, espionage, etc.
Therefore, Kantian ethics is seen as a more accepted approach due to everyone being treated more
equally.
Another issue of business is the relationship to the employees, where workers have a sense of duty
towards their employers and vice versa. In his taxonomy of duties, Kant stressed that human beings
have a duty to themselves to avoid being slavish to others; they have a duty to themselves to see that
their autonomy is respected. He also thought that making money for its own sake was wrong; avarice
is considered to be contrary to a person’s duty as a moral being. A greedy person is likely to be
irrational and led by their emotions, often doing immoral things in the pursuit of money. Kant’s
attitude to promise-keeping, which he uses it to explain the first formulation of the categorical
imperative, can also be applied to business: one person couldn’t sign a contract with the intention of
breaking it as this cannot be universally willed as contracts would cease to exist in their current form.
Companies must be completely honest in their dealings. Kant would also reject espionage, saying that
we have the perfect duty not to spy on others. Spying is self-contradictory, as if everyone did it there
would be no new ideas to steal. Applying the categorical imperative to business ethics shows that
Kant would reject the idea that a business’ main responsibility was to its shareholders, as this would
be treating humans merely as a means to an end. In Kant’s ethical framework, you need to imagine
yourself as a law- making member in a kingdom of ends, in example, considering all stakeholders.
The third formulation would see a business as a moral community- employers, employees,
stakeholders, shareholders- standing in a moral relationship with each other, which would influence
the way they treat each other. As a result, work must be meaningful, and business should be
democratic. This is a very useful approach, as it ensures equality within the workplace, and from this
duty, initially the business would profit.
