Friday, March 5, 2021
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Articles
    • See All Articles
    • NEW: COVID-Related
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Leadership and Career
  • Vendor News
  • Jobs
    • Compliance & Risk
    • Information Security
  • Events
    • Webinars & Events
    • Submit an Event
  • Downloads
    • eBooks
    • Whitepapers
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Articles
    • See All Articles
    • NEW: COVID-Related
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Leadership and Career
  • Vendor News
  • Jobs
    • Compliance & Risk
    • Information Security
  • Events
    • Webinars & Events
    • Submit an Event
  • Downloads
    • eBooks
    • Whitepapers
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights
Home Ethics

Is Classical Moral Philosophy Letting Us Down?

by Jim Nortz
June 24, 2014
in Ethics
Is Classical Moral Philosophy Letting Us Down?

This article appeared previously Association of Corporate Counsel’s ACC Docket and is published here with permission from the journal.

After giving a business ethics lecture at a university in Rochester, New York, I had the pleasure of speaking with a professor of applied ethics who lectured at the university’s engineering school. During our conversation, I asked the professor whether he thought classical moral philosophy — generally focused on various permutations of the utilitarian and deontological normative theories of ethics — was of any practical use in resolving real-world business issues. His response was as immediate as it was unequivocal: “No.”

The professor explained that his opinion was not solely based on his work with engineering students. He told me about an occasion when a friend sought his assistance with a work-related problem. After describing her ethical dilemma, she asked the professor, “What’s the right thing to do?” In response, the professor proceeded to confidently summarize the principles of the utilitarian and deontological schools of thought that are the product of thousands of years of scholarship by some of the finest minds the world has ever known. After listening with great interest to this impromptu lecture, she said, “So, what you’re telling me is that you really can’t help me at all.” Being an honest man, the professor conceded that she was right.

Anyone familiar with these bulwarks of classical moral philosophy likely is not surprised by the professor’s experience. As well developed as utilitarian and deontological theories might be, most acknowledge that they are, by themselves, imperfect tools for solving real-world ethical issues and often lead to contradictory or absurd conclusions.

Utilitarian theories of normative ethics are premised on the idea that the right thing to do is that which produces the greatest possible balance of good over bad for everyone affected by a particular action. Said another way, the rightness of an act is judged by the net “goodness” of the consequences it brings about. By contrast, deontological moral doctrines — often presented as a foil to utilitarian consequentialism — assert that, to do right, one should conform to moral norms such as laws and commonly recognized duties and ethical standards. Despite their initial appeal to our common-sense notions of right and wrong, the problem with these theories becomes apparent when applied to even routine business problems.

Say, for example, you’re asked to decide how to price a new drug. Applying the utilitarian philosophy, you might conclude that the greatest good would be served if you sold the drug at or below cost — even though you could charge much more and, by not doing so, you may place your firm under severe financial strain. Applying deontological philosophy in the same circumstances, and being mindful of your legal duty of care and loyalty to your shareholders, you might conclude that the right thing to do is to charge a price that has been calculated to maximize profits — even though this may result in the unnecessary suffering and death of millions who cannot afford it.

I concede that my brief recitation of these moral philosophies, as well as the example provided above, does not do justice to what are highly developed and immensely sophisticated schools of thought. But I offer them to illustrate the likely reason why a professor of applied ethics, who teaches such theories, has concluded that they are of little practical use to business professionals who, he concedes, routinely face moral challenges that would cause most “ivory tower” types to break out in hives. The bottom line is that if business professionals were to rely on such pure philosophical theories, they may have a lively internal discussion, but would likely have to flip a coin to decide which one is right.

Given the fact that these theories appear to be unsuited to resolving even garden-variety business issues, I asked the professor why so many business-ethics educational programs continue to teach them. He answered that business ethics is generally taught by the philosophy department and this is what they know how to teach.

I think this state of affairs presents an opportunity for the corporate bar to provide some much-needed assistance. As corporate attorneys, we are called on to help our clients resolve significant and difficult real-world ethical issues on a daily basis. As a consequence, there is, perhaps, no more skilled cadre of professionals better suited to help business professionals learn practical methodologies to reach principled judgments. I don’t think we need to get a doctorate in moral philosophy to do this work. Instead, we could have a positive impact on our leaders’ capacity to make difficult judgment calls by merely  teaching them what we already know — how we perform our daily work.

Consider for a moment the benefit that might be derived from teaching our business colleagues the basic approach that was drilled into us in law school and the skills we have honed on the job. Rather than being constrained by pure philosophical doctrines, we have the benefit of having been trained to discern and recommend principled options to our clients by  understanding the facts and applicable rules and by considering the consequences. This approach is a pragmatic blend of utilitarian and deontological principles that is not constrained by ideology or paralyzed by the notion that there is only one “right thing to do” in any particular circumstance. Instead, we succeed by helping our clients find a range of “right things” for them to choose from when exercising their reasoned business judgment. So instead of just doing our work and providing advice, perhaps our clients might best be served if we also invested our time in filling the gap left by moral philosophers and business schools to teach our colleagues how to engage in the same kind of dispassionate, careful analysis that we all take for granted.

Maybe the professor and I are missing the boat and classical moral philosophy holds the key to making sound, ethical business decisions. But, when I teach ethics to business professionals, I think it best to abandon the purity of the philosophy classroom and, instead, provide practical tools that have been highly developed in an institution that, at its best, serves as the conscience of the modern corporation — the corporate law department.


Previous Post

Five Ways that Concentration of Wealth and Power Affects Corruption Risk in Latin America

Next Post

Drawing the Line on Accountability

Jim Nortz

Jim NortzJim Nortz is Founder & President of Axiom Compliance & Ethics Solutions LLC, a firm dedicated to driving ethical excellence by helping organizations implement effective compliance and ethics programs. Jim is a nationally recognized expert and thought leader in the field of business ethics and compliance with over a decade of experience serving multinational petrochemical, staffing, business process outsourcing, pharmaceutical and medical device corporations. Jim spent the first 17 years of his career as a criminal and civil litigator and Senior Corporate Counsel before becoming Crompton Corporation’s first Vice President, Business Ethics and Compliance in 2003. Since then, Jim has served as a compliance officer at Crompton and for five other multinational corporations, the most recent of which was as Chief Compliance Officer at Carestream Health. Jim has extensive experience in implementing world-class compliance and ethics programs sufficiently robust to withstand U.S. Department of Justice scrutiny. Jim is a frequent guest lecturer at the University of Rochester’s Simon School of Business, RIT’s Saunders School of Business, St. John Fisher College, Nazareth College and other law schools, universities and organizations around the country. Jim writes the monthly business ethics columns for the Association of Corporate Counsel Docket magazine and the Rochester Business Journal. Jim is a National Association of Corporate Directors Fellow, a member of the International Association of Independent Corporate Monitors and serves on the Board of Directors of the Rochester Chapter of Conscious Capitalism as the Board’s Secretary and Chair of the Governance and Nomination Committee. Previously, Jim served on the Board of Directors for the Ethics and Compliance Officers Association and the Board of the Rochester Area Business Ethics Foundation.

Related Posts

Illustration representing a facial recognition technology scan of a face.

Facial Recognition Technology in the Workplace: Employers Use It, Workers Hate It, Regulation Is Coming for It

March 3, 2021
gold cup award on red background with stars

Ethisphere Announces the 2021 World’s Most Ethical Companies

February 23, 2021
Trump supporters on the steps of the Capitol

Trump, the Coup, and Corporate Ethics

January 11, 2021
Book Review: Grappling With The Gray

Book Review: Grappling With The Gray

December 18, 2020
Next Post
Drawing the Line on Accountability

Drawing the Line on Accountability

OneTrust offers download to demonstrate privacy management leadership
Access realtime data
Top 10 Risk and Compliance Trends

Special Coverage

Special COVID page graphic

Jump to a Topic:

anti-corruption anti-money laundering/AML Artificial Intelligence/A.I. automation banks board of directors board risk oversight bribery CCPA/California Consumer Privacy Act Cloud Compliance communications management Coronavirus/COVID-19 corporate culture crisis management cyber crime cyber risk data analytics data breach data governance decision-making diversity DOJ due diligence ESG fcpa enforcement actions financial crime GDPR GRC HIPAA information security KYC/know your customer machine learning monitoring ransomware regtech reputation risk risk assessment Sanctions SEC social media risk technology third party risk management tone at the top training whistleblowing
No Result
View All Result

Privacy Policy

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS Feed

Category

  • CCI Press
  • Compliance
  • Compliance Podcasts
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data Privacy
  • eBooks
  • Ethics
  • FCPA
  • Featured
  • Financial Services
  • Fraud
  • Governance
  • GRC Vendor News
  • HR Compliance
  • Internal Audit
  • Leadership and Career
  • Opinion
  • Resource Library
  • Risk
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Whitepapers

© 2019 Corporate Compliance Insights

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
  • Articles
  • Vendor News
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Whitepapers
  • eBooks
  • Events
  • Jobs
  • Subscribe

© 2019 Corporate Compliance Insights