Business ethics.

What is CSR and who are stakeholders?

-CSR (corporate social responsibility) is the idea that businesses have a responsibility not just to make profit for shareholders but also to stakeholders.

-Stakeholders are anyone affected by the business, including employees, customers, and the wider community.

What are environmental and social CSR, and how do Utilitarians and Kantians respond?

-Environmental CSR = not destroying the environment.

-Social CSR = not mistreating or exploiting people (e.g. fair wages, health & safety).

-Utilitarians support environmental CSR but might justify exploitation if it maximises happiness.

-Kantians say all CSR violations treat people as mere means and are morally wrong.

What is globalisation and what ethical issues does it raise?

-Globalisation is the phenomenon where world economies, industries, markets, cultures and policy-making/politics are connected. Businesses are global entities.

-Ethical issues include off-shore outsourcing – when a business closes a factory in a 1st world country and opens it in a third world country. This loses jobs from 1st world countries and causes exploitation in 3rd world countries.

-A further issue is that businesses now have a lot of power and can influence a country’s laws — a global corporation can bring jobs and economy to a country, which allows it to ask politicians to change laws to favour their business.

How does globalisation lead to monopolies and what do Utilitarians and Kantians say about it?

-Globalisation leads to monopolies – powerful businesses crush competition and dominate the market.

- This destroys the benefits of free market capitalism – innovation, economic growth, and cheap prices.

-Utilitarians liked Adam Smith’s free market capitalism idea, but generally disapprove of globalisation destroying competition (unless it maximises happiness – depends on the situation).

-Kantians also liked free market capitalism, but disapprove of globalisation when it destroys competition and leads to people being exploited (treated as ends).

What is whistleblowing, and what are its pros, cons, and legal status?

-Whistleblowing is the act of going public with information about shady/unethical business practices.

-The upside is that the unethical practices are likely to stop, but the downside can be that the business goes bankrupt and its employees lose their jobs.

-Case study: Edward Snowden – worked for the NSA in America and told the media they were illegally spying on innocent American citizens.

-Whistleblowing is legally protected in many countries like the UK. Employers aren’t allowed to treat you unfairly or fire you if you whistleblow.

-The idea behind this is to encourage whistleblowing to hold employers accountable, as it is generally seen as a good thing in mainstream liberal democracy.

What do Utilitarians and Kantians say about whistleblowing?

-Utilitarianism: It depends on the situation. If the suffering alleviated by the whistleblowing outweighs the suffering caused by the effect on the business, then whistleblowing is good; if not, then it's bad.

-Example: if a genius scientist is about to cure cancer but tortures employees, a Utilitarian might say don’t whistleblow.

-Kantian ethics: All shady/unethical business practices treat people as a mere means and are therefore wrong and deserve whistleblow.

-Also, Kant says lying isn’t universalizable – so lying is always wrong, making whistleblowing (telling the truth) morally right.

What are sweatshops, and what are the Utilitarian and Kantian views on them?

-Sweatshops are an example of the violation of social CSR and a consequence of globalisation.

-They are typically what people whistleblow about. Util & Kant would disagree/debate this issue.

-Utilitarians sometimes defend sweatshops; Will MacAskill points out that workers are technically better off because they’d likely starve without them, so happiness increases.

-Many argue sweatshops should treat employees better, but forcing profit loss may remove the incentive to open factories in developing countries. The benefit gained is inseparable from exploitation.

What are the criticisms and evaluation of Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics regarding sweatshops?

-Many criticise Utilitarianism for ignoring human rights. Kant argues it’s always wrong to exploit people by treating them as mere means, regardless of consequences.

-However, Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism claims we judge rules, not single acts. Mill’s harm principle says people should be free to act unless harming others.

-Mill would likely allow autonomous adults to work in sweatshops but ban child labour since children can’t consent.

How do Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics compare, and what is a real-life case study?

-Kant’s outright ban on sweatshops fits moral intuitions, but considering workers’ worse-off situation without sweatshops, Rule Utilitarianism seems better. It’s better to allow sweatshops than have workers starve.

-Case study: Primark clothes were made by exploited workers in sweatshops. When exposed, Primark cut ties, causing those workers to lose jobs and become worse off.

What is the calculation problem in Utilitarianism, and how does Kant critique it?

-Utilitarianism faces the issue that we cannot predict consequences before actions happen – we don’t know the future. We cannot measure subjective mental states like pleasure/pain, especially under time constraints in moral situations.

-Kant criticises consequentialism for this, saying ethics should focus on doing the right action regardless of consequences, since we can only really predict and control what we do.

How does the calculation problem apply to whistleblowing?

-We might underestimate the damage whistleblowing causes to the business and employees.

-It’s very hard to know in advance what could cause bankruptcy, especially since employees rarely know business finances.

-So calculation is very difficult for whistleblowing.

How does the calculation problem relate to globalisation and CSR?

-Utilitarians would generally oppose environmental exploitation but might justify exploiting people if it maximises happiness, even if it violates CSR or results from globalisation.

-However, they could underestimate unhappiness caused by exploitation. If businesses gain power over laws, exploitative practices could spread.

-Noam Chomsky warns that giving businesses too much power risks trampling our rights. Allowing exploitation is a dangerous slippery slope, so Kant’s approach seems more reliable and safe than Utilitarianism.

What are the counterarguments and evaluation of Kant and Utilitarianism on this issue?

-Kant’s deontological approach leads to counter-intuitive extremes, e.g., forbidding lying even to save a life, and forbidding exploitation to save a life. Utilitarianism seems more intuitive.

-Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism avoids the calculation problem by judging actions based on rules that maximise happiness if universally followed.

-Society can figure out such rules and improve them over time, e.g., Mill’s harm principle allowing freedom so long as no harm is done.

How does Mill’s approach address exploitation and societal rules on CSR, globalisation, and whistleblowing?

-Mill was against exploitation and thought society should aim for worker-owned co-ops for an ethical economy.

-He might allow exploitation short-term but require phasing it out long-term.

-Society needs to figure out rules about CSR, globalisation, and whistleblowing and follow them, avoiding the need to calculate consequences of every action individually.

What did Adam Smith argue about capitalism and the market?

-Adam Smith is called the ‘father’ of capitalism. He argued economies grow best through markets, where businesses compete to provide products/services.

-Competition causes better and cheaper products over time. It harnesses people’s self-interest to provide value for others in return for money.

-Smith said this system works so well it’s as if it’s guided by an ‘invisible hand’.

What is Milton Friedman’s view on business ethics and CSR?

-Milton Friedman argues Smith’s ideas are still valid today.

-His ‘shareholder theory’ claims the only ethical responsibility of a business is to increase profits for shareholders by fairly competing in the free market.

-There is no moral responsibility regarding management of private property.

-Friedman would reject the idea that CSR is needed, but if businesses use it for PR, that’s fine. He denies that free market capitalism is exploitative.

What is Karl Marx’s critique of capitalism and CSR?

-Marx argued capitalism is inherently exploitative, necessitating inequality between owners and workers. Workers’ labour enriches owners, causing alienation and psychological harm.

-Marx thought business could never be ethical under capitalism and CSR/whistleblowing don’t go far enough.

-Left-wing economists see CSR as hypocritical window dressing distracting from capitalism’s problems.

What are the counterarguments to Marx and Friedman’s views, and what’s the evaluation?

-Communism has never worked well, raising questions about compatibility with human nature.

-Absolute poverty dropped from 70% to 12% due to globalisation and capitalism, making Marx seem outdated.

-Friedman ignores how unchecked capitalism can destroy competition, harming markets Smith praised.

-Also, redistribution through taxes in social democracies isn’t theft but part of a social contract.

-Kant & Mill agree with Smith but want capitalism restricted to be ethical, supporting whistleblowing, CSR, and opposing globalisation.

How do Kant and Mill’s views on capitalism differ from Smith, Friedman, and Marx?

-Kant and Mill both like Smith’s ideas but think capitalism needs restrictions to be ethical.

-They represent a middle ground between Marx and Smith, proven successful in liberal democracies.

-Kant is more restrictive than Mill, but both support whistleblowing, CSR, and are against globalisation.