The Decomposition of the Corporate Body: What Kant Cannot Contribute
to Business Ethics |
| |
Authors: | Matthew C Altman |
| |
Institution: | (1) Department of Philosophy, Central Washington University, 400 E. University Way, Ellensburg, WA, 98926-7555, U.S.A. |
| |
Abstract: | Kant is gaining popularity in business ethics because the categorical imperative rules out actions such as deceptive advertising
and exploitative working conditions, both of which treat people merely as means to an end. However, those who apply Kant in
this way often hold businesses themselves morally accountable, and this conception of collective responsibility contradicts
the kind of moral agency that underlies Kant’s ethics. A business has neither inclinations nor the capacity to reason, so
it lacks the conditions necessary for constraint by the moral law. Instead, corporate policies ought to be understood as analogous
to legal constraints. They may encourage or discourage certain actions, but they cannot determine a person’s maxim – which
for Kant is the focus of moral judgment. Because there is no collective intention apart from any intentions of the individual
agents who act as members of the corporation, an organization itself has no moral obligations. This poses a dilemma: either
apply the categorical imperative to the actions of particular businesspeople and surrender the notion of collective responsibility,
or apply a different moral theory to the actions of businesses themselves. Given the diffusion of responsibility in a bureaucracy,
the explanatory usefulness of collective responsibility may force business ethicists to abandon Kant’s moral philosophy. |
| |
Keywords: | Bowie Norman categorical imperative collective responsibility corporate responsibility corporate internal decision procedure (CID) decision procedures deontological ethics Kant maxims moral agency responsibility |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|