Some Links (for my UGBA 107 students in particular)
I mentioned to some of my students that they might find this post of mine from last year, in which I question the practical possibility of Milton's Friedman's vision of a society with a pure free-market economy and in which business interests stay out of politics, interesting. I encourage students (and others, of course) to post their thoughts to the thread, where some of my previous students have already weighed in. You may also want to read this post by Hanno Kaiser, which is a response to my argument, and to which I have posted a comment.
There is also a very interesting discussion going on in the thread to this post at In Socrates' Wake on several issues related to business ethics classes (the discussion continues in part two of the post here). The discussion is largely between people who teach business ethics, and the discussion has focused on issues such as why business students tend to be hostile to thinking about ethics in a serious way, how best to approach introducing new students to ethical thinking, and problems with the way ethics is sometimes taught, in particular in business schools.
These issues are all extremely interesting and important, and I'd love to hear what my students think about them as they relate to how I've approached our course so far (you can post your thoughts as comments to this post).
I must say that my own experience teaching business ethics (limited though it is) has been overwhelmingly positive, and I haven't felt the kind of frustration that others describe in the thread I linked to above. I unexpectedly fell into teaching for Berkeley's summer business ethics course last year when a last minute replacement for another GSI was needed, and so I had very little time to prepare anything. I was extremely concerned that I'd encounter a great deal of hostility to ethical thinking and little interest in seriously discussing either practical or theoretical matters, and since I had no previous teaching experience I was terrified that I wouldn't know how to break the silence.
But the reality was just the opposite. The students were incredibly enthusiastic and genuinely interested in discussing ethical issues right from the start. And they continued to engage seriously with the issues I raised even after I had them read selections from both Singer and Unger (a move which some suggest is a mistake in a business ethics course; I'm not so sure). They made my job not only much less difficult than I anticipated, but extremely enjoyable as well. And this year's class has been equally good; I've been especially impressed by the kinds of questions that students have raised about the various ethical theories that we've discussed, and their ability to raise just the objections to, for example, Unger's arguments, that Unger himself anticipated in parts of his book that I didn't assign.
Of course, even though my impression is that the course is going quite well, there are always ways that it might be made better. Any suggestions from students, past or present, would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to post anonymously or e-mail me your suggestions if you'd rather they not be public.
There is also a very interesting discussion going on in the thread to this post at In Socrates' Wake on several issues related to business ethics classes (the discussion continues in part two of the post here). The discussion is largely between people who teach business ethics, and the discussion has focused on issues such as why business students tend to be hostile to thinking about ethics in a serious way, how best to approach introducing new students to ethical thinking, and problems with the way ethics is sometimes taught, in particular in business schools.
These issues are all extremely interesting and important, and I'd love to hear what my students think about them as they relate to how I've approached our course so far (you can post your thoughts as comments to this post).
I must say that my own experience teaching business ethics (limited though it is) has been overwhelmingly positive, and I haven't felt the kind of frustration that others describe in the thread I linked to above. I unexpectedly fell into teaching for Berkeley's summer business ethics course last year when a last minute replacement for another GSI was needed, and so I had very little time to prepare anything. I was extremely concerned that I'd encounter a great deal of hostility to ethical thinking and little interest in seriously discussing either practical or theoretical matters, and since I had no previous teaching experience I was terrified that I wouldn't know how to break the silence.
But the reality was just the opposite. The students were incredibly enthusiastic and genuinely interested in discussing ethical issues right from the start. And they continued to engage seriously with the issues I raised even after I had them read selections from both Singer and Unger (a move which some suggest is a mistake in a business ethics course; I'm not so sure). They made my job not only much less difficult than I anticipated, but extremely enjoyable as well. And this year's class has been equally good; I've been especially impressed by the kinds of questions that students have raised about the various ethical theories that we've discussed, and their ability to raise just the objections to, for example, Unger's arguments, that Unger himself anticipated in parts of his book that I didn't assign.
Of course, even though my impression is that the course is going quite well, there are always ways that it might be made better. Any suggestions from students, past or present, would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to post anonymously or e-mail me your suggestions if you'd rather they not be public.
posted by Brian Berkey at 11:18 PM
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18266847&postID=2715389874304565432&isPopup=true Comments:
I used to think that ethic is not necessary to learn because everyone has their standard moral value. However, I discovered that i made not less than five (I still can list it out) unethical decision in last two years of work and this can't be realized if I didn't participate in class.
When I was in HK, we talked a lot about Chinese philsophy, but in my point of view, some of the theories can never apply to our life anymore because those theories are highly related to their own culture and social environment but not us. That's why I will pick up the positive and valuable parts to learn and assist my life.
Conrad
I'm afraid my business experience has never favored business ethics, unless those ethics advantaged the "bottom line." Even when "consulting," no CEO was interested in the moral or ethical thing to do (some not even the legal thing to do), unless they could be persuaded that it had economic advantages. Nearly all corporate philanthropy is part genuine and part marketing, to portray business as "serving the community." In reality, only if it improves the bottom line.
For example, all the major corporations have left their San Francisco headquarters, save Wells Fargo Bank (MN headquarters), the private Bechtel Corp, and the public utility PG&E. The "social costs" of subsidizing every scheme of progressive politicians simply made their cost of doing business so prohibitively expensive, their competitive edge and shareholders' earnings were significantly diminished. Plus, many found California's public policies in general, and San Francisco's in particular, too burdensome, uncompetitive, and expensive.
I may not subscribe to Friedman's unfettered free-market economics, but I have come to recognize the wisdom of his repudiation of "corporate philanthropy." Business serves many varied interests, not the least of which is economic, but it should not be the "proxy" or "surrogate" for social engineering. If its profit motive is in any way compromised by such absurdities as government-mandated employer insurance, it simply makes the company non-competitive, and then requires it to outsource or relocate where such draconian measures are imposed.
That's not to argue against social policies for worker safety, worker benefits, fair-employment, non-discrimination, and other work-related benefits, but to saddle business with social engineering projects, rather than embrace them as a society, just misplaces the burden of cost, the origin of benefit, and the subversion of the economic system. Even UAW chief Walter Reuther rejected the efforts to saddle Big Auto with transfer-of-payment retirement schemes, but alas, all lost that battle, save the long-gone social engineers. Unable to generate profits, the Big Auto will collapse, and NO retirement or pensions will be paid.
Social objectives must be achieved through our PUBLIC systems, not through our PRIVATE proxies. Regulating the workplace for workers' benefits and safety, for consumer goods, and social compliance are all to be encouraged, but to require corporation to fund the arts, to build hospitals, to subsidize public transit, etc., are all misplaced schemes that ultimately cause business to relocate to less inhospitable and socially-toxic environs.
In reponse to the lucid comment before me ... I also agree that the government should be the primary force behind implementing public policy, such as the things you mentioned like workers benefits, fair-employment practices, or donations to local symphonies and art funds. Corporations do not have the sufficient means to address societal needs and the government could do so much more efficiently.
However, as Brian noted, in today's society, business is so entrenched in American politics and government (ex. media outlets are owned and greatly influenced by giant corporations) that corporations may have a moral obligation to help in advancing public policy. If corporations have the ability to direct a legislation towards removing restrictions on carbon emissions for automobiles, aren't they obliged to help out the environment, not hurt it?
Excellent questions.
First, corporations are not moral agents, except derivatively through the agency of individual employees, the board, and management, all of which are individual actors acting as corporate agents. To make "moral" demands on a corporation seems rather far-fetched. We can legislate social policies that we deem to be axiologically superior, and often did until the 1980s. But to require a non-human entity to act "morally" outside of legislating policies for social good may stretch the imagination.
Corporations are, indeed, government entities. They are instruments of the State, with ownership conferred to stockholders. They should be heavily regulated by SOCIAL policies that diminish harms and promote the good. But, again, to require that a non-human entity itself act "morally," can only be derivatively, as with our "governments," through agency. And the same TYPE of ethical requirements we desire of PUBLIC government should apply to PRIVATELY-OWNED government entities, as both are PUBLIC creations.
Where an important divide between these two public entities must be kept is keeping social engineering separate from social policy. Corporations (and all businesses) should be held to account for its BUSINESS, EMPLOYMENT, and other COMMON practices while allowed to earn its shareholders profits. But, as I hope we all know, to "tax a company" is simply to raise its cost of goods to the consumer through pass-through of its transfers-of-payment. I find that concealed practice deceptive, uncompetitive, and unsound. The European VAT is no better. And HIDING government taxes for PUBLIC services through corporate taxation serves no one's transparency requirements. "Smoke-and-mirrors" has a reality in our tax policies.
Business offers services and products for a profit. Anything that compromises this basic model compromises all of us. We can take our earnings and "invest" them (in Clinton's wonderful euphemism) for a social good, called taxes, to build roads, airports, mass transit, etc. Those social goods, however, should come from the social pocketbook, from the members of society directly. Not from or through the "entity" called "business," in order to CONCEAL.
But the consequences are worse than concealment. By the tax pass-throughs to the consumer, the business loses its competitive edge with other competitors NOT subject to the conceal taxes. So, then business wants "breaks" for having lost its competitiveness, due to this hair-brained deceptive scheme. And gets them. And before long, everyone has become a "special interest" for those "breaks." And foreign corporations love it, because it throws the entire "scale" out of balance, where their cheaper labor and poorer infrastructures can "price-wise" advantage its products.
Thus, the U.S. is no longer a PRODUCING nation, with most production offshore or outsourced, and their "deficits" financed by taxpayer subsidies IN ADDITION to the tax pass-throughs. Oh, it gets more labyrinthine and dishonest. But you get the idea. ON TOP of which, we want to burden these companies with our social engineering schemes. No burden at all. It's all smoke-and-mirrors anyway. All taxes come from individuals. All taxes levied on "business" are simply "passed through" to the consumer. So, the individual ALWAYS pays. The ILLUSION is that companies "pay their fair share," when they are nothing more than "transitive agents" of governments' taxation concealments.
When it comes to SOCIAL policy, yes, we are all a part of the social network, and all must abide by the same basic rules. But we have legislators claiming we cannot legislate morality, and yet people want corporations to convert to philanthropic social engineers and act "morally." They act when required by SOCIAL POLICY; they leave when forced to pay SOCIAL ENGINEERING. They could still "pass through" the costs, but the hoax is so silly, when other countries are less fraudulent. Plus, direct graft and pay-offs of corrupt officials is CHEAPER than playing America's game of illusions.
So,
--Individuals act morally
--Society can effect social policy
--All taxes are always born by individuals, and no one else
--Companies can be made to meet social requirements that "fit" its direct affairs, but not by proxy or surrogacy
--And "infrastructure" does not come "free," so allowing foreign companies to compete with different "infrastructures" without tariffs to balance the difference is a recipe for economic disaster over the long term (short term, consumer prices fall).
--But since the U.S. needs China to buy its War Debt, it never gets tariffed, and so its goods are significantly cheaper (less infrastructure and parity and all)
--Indeed, the U.S. imposes only a 2.5% tariff on Chinese goods, while it imposes a 25% tariff on what few U.S. goods are made. Talk about imbalance of trade! (all for the war effort, you know, to get the Chinese to buy our deficits)
And look who orchestrates our SOCIAL POLICIES? K-Street Lobbyists. The government entities lobbying itself through its other agents, Congress and the White House.
Which is why I have long advocated only "natural persons" ability to participate in the POLITICAL process. They non-naturals may advocate NATURALS, but not as "agents," only as INDIVIDUAL citizens. What a Revolutionary Idea. Our Founders might have imposed it, if they sensed the impending corporatization of American politics. Now, the one is simply bilking the other in its game of smoke and mirrors. Alas, I doubt anyone CAN change matters, because our "representatives" are beholden to K-Street more than to the citizen. When the cheap products are gone, and too the producers, what's left is an empty infrastructure long ignored.
Brian,
I'd just like to mention that my experience with business ethics has also been unexpectedly positive. I took the class last summer, mostly because I needed an elective and one of my favorite professors was teaching it. Business ethics that semester happened to be a night class, and as a result many of the students were "non-traditional" (meaning - students who are a little older than usual and/or work full-time during the day and go to school in the evening). There was definitely a learning curve; it took some members of the class a few weeks to understand the manner in which academic ethical inquiry proceeds. But it turned out that the non-traditional students had quite alot to offer to the class; some of them raised issues I never would have thought of, and they cited examples from their own first-hand work experience. I used to think that business ethics was kind of a marginal discipline, but now when I read the news I find that it's actually at the forefront of modern public life.
Even I am a student from 08 summer session, I would like have some comments on the ethic class here.Before taking the class, I thought ethic is not something that can be studied. However, withe the learning, I thought the ethical study did help me to look ethical issue with a border view. It helps me to think about ethical aspect whenever I deal with either my personal issue or my future work or business environment that I will encounter. Now, I will stop and think if it is ethical thing to do. Before, I know what is ethical by my own standard, but I never really to think about it why and how the impacts will be. So, overall,the class has been fun and positive experience the help me aware ethical problems and also gain the insights of what other people's (means philosophers, students, teachers, and the society)ethical standards are.
DI
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home