Introduction
In this essay, I will argue that Anand Vaidya’s statement that ethical theory in business should not be considered indeterminate and unintelligible, only based on misalignment with ethical theories, is fundamentally flawed. First, I will present the idea and the arguments provided by the author in the article titled “Ill-founded Criticism of business ethics”. Next, I will discuss why I think business ethics should be considered useless, supporting this claim with evidence. I will end by showing that the fact that the business world follows some established principles of behavior in its circle does not indicate that it is moral.
Exegesis
Vaidya’s goal in the article is to prove that business and ethics are not mutually exclusive concepts. The author argues that the common belief, even among many insiders of this world, is that business is a list of rules that needs to be followed to remain within the limits of approved conduct. However, many people claim that “one only pays lip service in the pursuit of profit” (Vaidya, 2016, p. 15). It is commonly believed that even so-called socially responsible companies act in accordance with the profit they obtain by acquiring this particular identity (Vaidya, 2016). Therefore, it is frequently asserted that the notion of business ethics is useless, besides the point, and indeterminate (Vaidya, 2016). Despite this strong viewpoint in the general population and business people, the author strives to explain that it is unreasonable to consider it unintelligible only because business ethics does not align well with ethical theories. Vaidya presents three counterarguments against the abovementioned accusations of business ethics.
The author’s first argument against such a perception of business ethics is that people’s moral values are malleable. In fact, the cynics state that since individuals usually enter this world in their 20s and 30s, their mindsets are already fixed; hence, their views about what is right and wrong vary (Vaidya, 2016). According to this belief, the debate about business ethics’ importance is meaningless. The author asserts that this viewpoint is fundamentally flawed because people are capable of altering their moral values throughout their lifetimes depending on the circumstances.
Secondly, the author claims that business ethics principles do not always follow the ideas of consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics does not indicate it is valueless. Conversely, its value can be seen in the need for a healthy debate about the morality of one’s actions because wrongdoing, even in the world of currency flow, leads to unpleasant consequences (Vaidya, 2016). In fact, even Socrates, as presented by the author, suggested that any group that lives by a code and has established rules should be considered ethical.
Vaidya’s third argument states that it cannot be noted that business ethics is an oxymoron since people on any market exchange goods, services, and money justly because parties receive what they desire. Thus, it is unfair to say that only business individuals benefit by accepting cash, but people who purchase win, too (Vaidya, 2016). In that sense, the self-interest that companies have does not contradict the notion of ethics.
Set of Reasons
I will now discuss why I believe that Vaidya was too quick to claim that statements about the implausibility of the business ethics concept due to its lack of alignment with ethical theories are wrong. The three main ethical theories mentioned by the author are deontology, consequentialism, and virtues. I will focus on the principles of each to show that Vaidya’s argument is not sufficient though valid, in claiming that a healthy debate is needed in all three theories to attain truth.
Firstly, in consequentialism, the right action is the one that maximizes overall happiness, while the goal of business is to increase profit. Intuitively, people in the business world may not always act morally when trying to maximize their income. For example, marketing campaigns for a soda drink only show the pleasant experience the customer can get from purchasing the product. However, advertisement never demonstrates the adverse consequences of drinking soda for the human organism. It is undoubtedly unethical from the utilitarian philosophy’s view, but such an approach is a commonly accepted behavior on the market. Hence, it is hard not to view the notion of business ethics as an oxymoron.
Secondly, the actions of individuals in the business world are not universally good for all. As presented by the author, one example of deontology is Kantian philosophy, which claims that “the right action is that action whose maxim can be universalized without contradiction” (Vaidya, 2016, p. 17). The issue, in this case, is not that the term business ethics negates this theory frequently. It is fundamentally wrong to state that it is not a controversial concept if it benefits some groups but harms others. For instance, selling cigarettes and other nicotine-containing products brings enormous profit to tobacco companies, but it hurts the consumers’ health and finances, despite the short-term pleasure that smoking may get them. It can be seen that it is insufficient to claim that a healthy debate is required to attain truth in situations of apparent contradiction because harming one’s well-being is not a moral act.
Thirdly, Vaidya’s lack of focus on virtue ethics indicates that the author’s argument was not strong enough to assert that business ethics is valuable despite its inconsistency with the theories of ethics. According to virtue ethics, one should ask not what actions are right but what thoughts, intentions, motives, character, and behaviors comprise a good life. This normative theory teaches people to become more virtuous by making better judgments in life, which ultimately should propel individuals to do the right things. Although people who work in business may be virtuous at their core, they may be required to do wrong to maximize a company’s profit. In fact, by “doing wrong,” I do not mean stealing money or murdering people, but such decisions as withholding the truth about the product’s potential harm to consumers are immoral. In that sense, the indeterminacy of the concept of business ethics may be considered valid.
Conclusion
By writing this analysis, I was trying to show that Vaidya’s statement about the fact that business ethics should not be called indeterminate is premature. I tried to argue that companies make wrong decisions and act immorally for the purpose of obtaining profit. Thus, stating that more debate is needed to prove the value of the concept under discussion is unnecessary. Wrongdoing is not reverted by claiming that philosophers have not agreed yet on what school of thought is correct. It may be an overstatement because my point is not to prove the indeterminacy of business ethics since one can certainly strive to improve, but I view the author’s logic behind ethical theories as weak.
Reference
Vaidya, A. J. (2016). Ill-founded criticism of business ethics. Foundational Issues, 15-20.