Honest Work Intro, Chapter 1: Ethical Theories

1. Ethics and Work Intro/HW 1

2. Overview • “Normative” Ethics asks about what “SHOULD” be the case. We discuss two ways to ask this question: intention (KANT) vs. consequence (MILL). • The workplace is, like anywhere in society, is inherently unequal. But, this does not mean that workplace or society should be unfair. • Problem: Capitalism is thought to benefit from both inequality and unfairness. Thus, workplaces should be unequal and unfair: survival of the fittest. • Response: RESPECT (and idea from Kant) benefits fairness in unequal conditions and generates greater “profit” beyond mere fiscal capital.

3. Enter Philosophical Ethical Theory

5. Where does the “good” reside? Kant: By thought alone (a priori), we recognize that a good will is infinite. Anything that is infinite is an end in itself. So, good will is an end in itself.

6. Where does the “good” reside? Kant: Good is in a “good will” of a rational being satisfying the duty of the greatest maxim: to only act as if my action were to be made a universal law. The ‘greatest maxim’ is really the basis of ‘respect’ that one human can hold for another. I can never find another rational agent (a reflective person with free will) to be non-moral—i.e. not deserving of my moral intentions. (see Bowie)

7. Ethical Theory Overview Kant: Good is in a “good will” of a rational being satisfying the duty of the greatest maxim: to only act as if my action were to be made a universal law. Mill: Good is the maximization of pleasure (happiness) and the minimization of pain.

8. Mill and Utility • Mill: Good is the maximization of pleasure (happiness) and the minimization of pain.

9. For Mill, pleasure is both the good and the motivation Mill: By experience alone (a posteriori) we recognize that pleasure is the greatest end. Whatever is the greatest end, is the greatest good. So, pleasure is the greatest good. Utility cares about consequences of greatest happiness.

10. Problem for Mill and Utility • What is the greatest Pleasure???? Quantity or Quality? • Quantity Maximization: • Greatest duration • Greatest number of instances • Quality Maximization: • Greatest diversity of qualities? (Renaissance Man?) • Greatest amount of a singular quality? (Don Juan?) Mill’s Answer: “Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites, and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include [qualitative] gratification.” (Chapter 2)

11. Further Problems for Mill Further Objection1: Pleasure gain and pain avoidance is not a legitimate end. Further Objection 2: Pleasures are not quantifiable, and thus not maximizable, because they admit of different incomparable kinds and types (e.g. rational, physical, aesthetic, spiritual, etc.) Further Objection 3: Leads to seemingly inhumane claims, like aborting/killing severally disabled infants. (see Singer)

12. Sum: Utility vs. Good Will • Utility (Mill) cares about consequences of greatest happiness. • Good Will (Kant) cares about the intentions of ones actions directed at treating others as ends to themselves. How might these distinctive views of what ”SHOULD” be done play out in the business world, particularly the work place? Let’s consider a possibly “UNETHICAL” workplace……….

13. For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard….The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius as well. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. "These men who were hired last worked only one hour," they said, "and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day." "'But he answered one of them, "Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?" "'So the last will be first, and the first will be last'" (Matthew 20:1-16).

14. The Nature of the Workplace What is wrong with the vineyard workplace? Everyone gets paid an equal amount. So, it should be a “fair” wage.

15. Problem:unEqual => unFair A workplace environment is fundamentally unequal: • Pay • Work load • Time use • Personal issues Need an unequal workplace be unfair (unjust)? Workplace ethics is about how to be fair when the environment is unequal.

16. How to be equitable in unequal conditions?

17. Respect (Kant –Bowie): A Workplace Ethic Kantian Ethics: Treat others as ends unto themselves rather than means to an end. When we interact with other people, we must treat them like people rather than as objects.

18. Problem for Kant: Capitalism • With our current “capitalist” market system, all sources of profit, including people, are means for profit gain.

19. Why Respect? • People are independent, autonomous, and self-governing. • Whatever is independent, autonomous, and self-governing possesses the capability of responsibility. • Whatever is capable of responsibility possess intrinsic dignity (moral status) because those issuing dignity are themselves capable of responsibility. • Thus, People have intrinsic dignity (moral status).

20. Respectand the Workplace The point of Kant’s argument is that for any person to want respect from others, they must live in a ‘system’ of respect for others. Without a system of respect, no one will be treated with respect (including those in authority who demand respect).

21. W.D. Ross’s “Prima Facie” duties of respect • Prevent injustice • Do no harm • Keep promises • Truth telling • Make amends • Do good deeds • Better yourself • Express appreciation A fair (system of respect) workplace will cultivate duties of respect.

22. Problem for Kant: “Leadership as Ownership” • With our current “capitalist” market system, there is a hierarchy of rule and profit, benefitting the few at the cost of the many.

23. People as Profit (Hochshild) Ways of “People Profit” Physical Labor Emotional Labor

24. People as Profit (Hochshild) “People Profit” => Process/Product “People profit” makes explicit the notion that process affects product.

25. Process and Product How a thing comes to be determines how it is.

26. Process and Product How a thing comes to be determines how it is. If a company requires its employees to engage in emotional labor, like smiling, then the meaning of the product (happiness), including the product itself (customer satisfaction) is undermined. By contrast, a company that just has happy employees will naturally have a stronger meaning of the product, including the product itself.

28. Hochshild’s Response for Kant: Capitalism • With our current “capitalist” market system, all sources of profit, including people, are means for profit gain. But, if process affects product, then treating people as ends will result in more overall profit.

29. Hochshild’s Response for Kant: Leadership as Ownership • Emotional and Physical labor should flow naturally out of the workplace environment rather than be coerced in order to make greater profit.

31. Hochshild’s Response for Kant: Capitalism • The greater allowance for free speech of employees, the greater felt autonomy and responsibility as a moral being—as a person. So, greater free speech translates into greater profits.

32. Kant’s Summary Responseto Capitalism • If capitalist workplaces treat employees with respect, then their [overall] profits will be maximized.