Ethics, morals and business.

A brief intro to business ethics

This brief introduction aims to clarify the terms used most often throughout this course
– ethics and morals – and to show how they relate to economic issues. It starts off with
some general definitions of the terms we need to talk “business ethics” (part 1). It goes on to
show that doing business is always embedded in a moral universe, and that economics is
indeed a peculiar kind of ethics (part 2). It finally gives a first overview of ethical paradigms
and theories, showing the many ways to judge, direct and justify what's supposed to be a
good decision – in business and other realms of life (part 3).
In the units that follow, we will get back to these ethical theories, discuss them in more
detail and try to apply them to special issues and concrete cases.

1) What is Ethics and Morals?

The use of words is sometimes fuzzy. In colloquial speech, we may talk about something
being more or less “ethical” or “moral” when we mean that it is the right or wrong thing to
do, based on some shared basic understanding of what's “good” and “bad” – or “evil”.
Usually, this serves to articulate our intuitive approval or disapproval of certain deeds or We all have acquired
moral intuitions about
motives. And usually, that's all we want – and we don't see much reason to split hairs. what's the right or wrong
thing to do – and usually
However, if we start pondering about the very issue of “good” and “evil”, and if we want we feel no need to think
to reflect upon our moral intuitions, we actually start talking ethics: At that point, we need about it.

a little more clarity in our language. That's why we start off with a quick and easy definition
of the terms we will need most often during this course: ethics and morals.

Ethics
For a start, it can't hurt to go back to the roots. Etymology (= the study of the origin of
words) reveals that “ethics"
1) has roots in ancient Greek, whereas “morals” is of Roman/Latin origin.
2) refers to “ēthikē” (ἠθική), actually an adjective originally connected to epistēmē
(ἐπιστήμη) to denote “ethical understanding”.
3) was derived from “ēthos” (ἦθος), meaning “character” or “disposition”, to be While, originally, both
distinguished from “ethos” (ἔθος) which refers to customs, rites or habits – what Romans terms were roughly
synonymous, addressing
later used to call the “mores". patterns of human
action, ethics has since
So, while etymology doesn't reveal us the “true meanings” of the words, it may give a come to be defined as
first orientation. There's actually no binding or clear-cut definition of the terms that covers the philosophical
discipline that deals with
all they contain and defines how they relate to each other. However, there's some sort of morals.
convention that “ethics” refers to the discipline that describes, judges and directs human
behaviour in terms of “good” and “evil” – and “morals” rather refers to given patterns,
norms and rules of action which are the subject of ethical reflection. At the risk of
oversimplification, we could put it in a formula: Ethics is about morals, and morals is about
actions.

Ethics, morals and business. A brief intro to business ethics

1
 In most general terms, then, ethics is that branch of philosophy that deals with human
Ethics is practical practice – that's why it is also sometimes called “practical philosophy”. Other divisions of
philosophy: It is about philosophy may be concerned with “being” (ontolog), human existence (existential
how we act – and how
we should act. philosophy), with cognition/perception (epistemolog) or thought (logics). Ethics may turn
to these for justification. Its focus, however, is clearly on human action: Ethics is about how
we act – and how we should act.
Actually, it is on that very basic level where economics and ethics meet and clearly
overlap: They are both concerned with human practice and how to improve it. Historically,
That's where ethics and economics used to be part of philosophy – it's actually been a “spin-off” from practical
economics overlap: Both
deal with human practice philosophy. With the Enlightenment and the rise of capitalism, however, economics
& how to improve it. „emancipated” itself from philosophy and religious dogma to become a self-conscious new
scientific discipline, reflecting upon that sphere of society we call the economy.
And ever since, there's been some kind of conflict of competence over certain questions
Ethics is also moral or problems concerning the economy – we will get back to that in a second. In more specific
philosophy: It's about
analysing, judging and terms, ethics is that branch of philosophy that deals with morals -- that's why it is also
directing moral sometimes called “moral philosophy”. As such, ethics is concerned with the analysis,
behaviour.
judgement and direction of moral behaviour.
The relationship between ethics and morals is quite similar to the relationship between
economics and the economy: Both these terms can be derived from the ancient Greek
The relationship between “oikos” for “house” or “household”. Still nowadays we talk about a national or urban
ethics and morals is
analogous to that “household”, which carries exactly this meaning. The “economy” – in very general terms –
between economics and is about the regular, rational provision of goods, by way of production, distribution and
the economy.
consumption. “Economics”, then, is the study of the economy: It is concerned with the
analysis, judgement and direction of economic behaviour.

Morals
Morals or morality is about the actual patterns, norms and rules of behaviour that do
exist – side by side – in any given society. Other than “ethics”, the term has its roots not in
Morals has come to be ancient Greek, but in Latin. While, etymologically, ethics and morals carry quite similar
defined as the sum of
patterns, norms and (similarly ambiguous) meanings, the convention to identify ethics with the study of morals
rules of behaviour that may simply have to do with the fact that the one is considered to be older than the other.
exist in any given
society. “O tempora, o mores!” For generations, this has probably been the standard quote to
bemoan the “moral decline” of society. It's credited to Cicero, who used it in his well known
speech against Catilina, in 63 B. C. Actually, Cicero is also credited with having introduced
ēthikē into Latin in the sense of “philosophia moralis” – the meaning we nowadays infer to
it. “Mores” – the term which interests us here – is derived from Latin “mos”, which actually
carries the same, ambiguous range of meaning as ēthikē, denoting character, will, custom or
rule.

“Mores” and the “moral sciences” In its original, descriptive meaning, “mores” has been one of the oldest
L

sociological concepts to capture what was considered right and wrong, or moral, in human behaviour in a
given society or community. Actually, the “moral statistics” developed in early 19th century by Belgian
astronomer, mathematician and sociologist Adolphe Quételet has been called a progenitor of sociology: Here

Ethics, morals and business. A brief intro to business ethics

2
for the first time – and then even more so in the works of Emile Durkheim, a sociological classic – there was
an effort to investigate “immoral” (deviant or criminal) behaviour and correlate it with certain socio-
demographic variables. The goal of these efforts was to unearth the hitherto hidden “moral fabric” of society –
that new, modern thing that seemed to be kept together somehow, without any central moral authority like the
one once possessed by the clerus, and despite economic and social disruptions brought about by the political
and technological revolutions of the time.

Actually, “morale” still carries these meanings: In most general terms, it is about
motivation or will: In that sense of the word, we talk about “employee morale”, “working
morale” or even the “morale” of troops or sports teams, e. g.. More specifically, “morale” Moral standards are
implies some sort of value judgement. What's special about moral standards, generally, is supposed to be serious,
preferable, universal,
that they are supposed to be serious, preferable, universal, impartial and emotional. They impartial and emotional:
are about things that matter, that we value. And in fact, in most cases we feel some sort of They refer to things that
we value.
moral intuition that tells us what's the right thing to do. Sometimes, however, these
subjective intuitions may seem grossly immoral to others, or in the light of ethical reflection.
To act “morally”, generally speaking, means to act in compliance with some norm or
rule that's being approved/held up by a social group. This usually implies some sort of
positive and negative support or sanctions. Immoral acts do violate
some moral standard,
• "Unmoral” or “immoral” we call a behaviour that does not comply with some set of while amoral acts are
supposed to be “beyond
moral rules or norms. good and evil”.

• "Amoral” – and this may be new to you – we call behaviour that is not governed or
hampered by any such moral considerations.

How does moral behaviour relate to legal/"lawful” behaviour? Generally speaking, laws can be seen as

and guaranteed, i. e. it is enforced by some sanctioning body such as the state.

Still, very often laws and morals are at odds, because what's legal need not always be considered to be
L
a subset of moral norms of a more binding, institutionalized and objectified type. Their validity is “positive”

legitimate. Indeed, in many cases, laws are not sufficient to secure moral behaviour. In addition to that, if
sanctions are rare or not too deterrent, abiding to the law (e. g. to pay one's taxes) itself constitutes a basic
moral claim.

Economic behaviour can be said to be “amoral” in that it is free from explicit moral
considerations, even though they are still valid outside of the economic sphere, limiting
economic behaviour in the sense of “guardrails". Economic behaviour,
theoretically, is
supposed to be amoral –
This disrespect of economic behaviour and economics for moral norms is the result of a governed by “laws” of
historical process of emancipation of economic thinking from moral philosophy (see above). economics that
This process of “disembedding” of the economy from the social fabric, which goes hand in supposedly do without
moral man.
hand with a belief in economics as a hard natural science that makes no normative
judgements, is actually one of the main sources of conflict and the reason for business
ethics. On the other hand, of course, the “economic system”, even if it has developed its
own institutions, norms and rules, is still part of society and linked to it in many ways.

Ethics, morals and business. A brief intro to business ethics

3
 Moral Economy
Basically, every economy is embedded in what's been called a “moral economy”. English
historian E. P. Thompson coined this term when he investigated the conflict between newly
installed free market policies and popular moral intuitions about what's good and just in
economic transactions, as it broke out in early 19th century “hunger riots”. Thompson
The “moral economy” is
the sum total of our
showed that the outrage was not merely about empty stomachs, but about moral intuitions
believes about what's on economic affairs (Thompson 1971).
morally good and right,
or bad and unjust in an Economic sociology more recently reintroduced the “moral economy” as a term that
economy.
denotes the moral universe that businesses are situated in (Granovetter 1994). Generally
speaking, the “moral economy” is about our moral intuitions which we bring to bear when
we make up our minds about what's going on around us: what's good and right, or bad and
unjust.
Outrage about injustice, Actually, there are plenty of examples where this moral context of business reveals itself.
illegitimate gain or
exploitation is a basic
In its most visible form, this is the case with outrage about things that seem unjust, when
expression of this moral people seem to get things they do not deserve (or do not get what they deserve) or whenever
economy.
someone exploits others for personal gain.

Moral outrage and the moral economy of society Actually, moral outrage has both been an indicator that
L

something's wrong (with the economy or with politcs) and an initiator for change. Think of some recent
examples for such moral outrage: With his best-selling book Indignez-vous! (Time for Outrage!), written at the
age of 92, Stéphane Hessel, a former resistance fighter and survivor of the Holocaust, confirmed and
inspired the views of millions of people around the globe (Hessel 2011). The Occupy movement has brought
hundreds of thousands of people worldwide on the streets, criticizing the “greed” of bankers, bank bailouts
and a generally unjust distribution of wealth in an economy that – according to the movement – benefits the
richest 1% of the population. The “anti-globalization movement” has been around since the early 1990s,
criticizing neo-liberal globalization and the collateral damage on societies and nature in its wake. More
recently, so-called “shit storms”, “flash mobs” and other spontaneous outbreaks of collective outrage have
been made effective through new social media. Actually, we encounter such outrage about particular
“immoral” business practices almost on a daily basis. Topics of particular concern in this respect include:*
- lay-offs ("redundancies"), discrimination and intrusions of privacy at the workplace (LABOUR)
- exploitation of people and nature for profit, bribery and unfair trade (SOURCING)
- deceiving consumers, price gouging, intruding the public space (MARKETING)
- a “greed is great mentality” and resource-sapping consumerism (CONSUMPTION)
- “greedy” traders and bankers, bank bailouts, creative accounting, externalization (CONTROLLING)
- narrow shareholder value management (STAKEHOLDERS)
- depletion of natural resources (SUSTAINABILITY)
* The terms in capital letters refer to relevant fields of management or economic behaviour that we are going to deal with in-
depth in the following units.

In all these cases, moral outrage signals that there's a conflict between our moral
Moral outrage reveals a
conflict between our intuitions and economic reality, between what's deemed to be economically sound and
moral intuitions and morally justifiable. This sheds light on the fact that the economy is still very much
economic reality.
embedded in a moral universe.

Ethics, morals and business. A brief intro to business ethics

4
 Actually, that's the very result of many studies and experiments that were carried out by
“behavioural economics”, a socio-psychological subdiscipline of economics. One of its most
striking findings is the so-called “inequity aversion”: When offered an exchange which
favoured the other party (to different degrees), probands usually rejected the transaction at
a certain point – even if this meant that they themselves went away empty-handed. Their Behavioural economics
moral intuition, the feeling that they were eventually taken to the cleaners, as it were, shows that most people
indeed do not act strictly
proved stronger than the promise of a quick gain (Alvard 2004). economically, but
morally rational.
Behavioural economists therefore claim their findings to belie the micro-economic
model of homo oeconomicu, the “economic man”: a theoretical creature that's supposed to
be fully and perfectly informed, have “exogenous”, strictly ordered and relatively stable
preferences, and be a self-interested utility maximizer. Actually, would we really be
modelled after this homunculu, it's hard to imagine that a human society, let alone an
economy would have come to existence in the first place .

2) What do ethics and morals have to do with business?

There are actually two ways in which this question may be answered – and this points to Ethics may describe and
two different views of ethics, as the discipline that deals with morals. First, ethics may look analyse what role
morality plays in the
at the actual state of morals: It tries to describe and to analyse what role morality plays in economy – and it may
our everyday lives. That's called descriptive ethics. Secondly, it may try to make reasoned judge and direct
economic behaviour.
judgements and give directions about what's deemed morally right and wrong. That's called
normative ethics (“ethics proper”).

Descriptive ethics
Descriptive ethics deals with the question what role “morality” actually plays in the
Descriptive ethics looks
economy – immoral behaviour which we just discussed, but also moral behaviour. It may at the role moral norms
well be that “economics” does not deal with morality – that's not its business. Moral actually play in an
economy – notably as a
considerations, seen that way, are “exogenous”, outside of its realm of competence. Still, form of “social capital”
contrary to the belief that business is just amoral or even immoral or that moral norms that allows for efficient
economies &
would only interfere with business, limit it, morals actually play an important role for the businesses.
efficient functioning of an economy. There are indeed many moral aspects and factors that
play a role in economic behaviour – in economies and businesses alike.

Morals and economies

In recent decades, efforts have been made to implant economic systems and impose
structural reforms on countries meant to induce some sort of self-actuating economic
recovery and growth. Repeatedly, the lesson had to be learnt that, indeed, the efficient Economies are indeed
functioning of economic (and other) institutions is not independent of its cultural context, very much contingent on
cultural – including
and that economic theory itself is actually often ignorant of that context and terribly moral – factors.
misleading about real effects. Rather, the success of an economic system and its institutions
is very much contingent on cultural factors: specific histories, customs, traditions, social
structure, and not least moral norms (Easterly 2002).
Not only are certain norms highly culturally contingent – they have developed in close
affinity with the economic system to which they belong (cf. virtues). Above all: Moral

Ethics, morals and business. A brief intro to business ethics

5
 norms – if they are sufficiently binding and effectively sanctionable – make economic
behaviour more predictable and calculable. Thus, they make economic transactions easier,
less costly and sometimes even possible. Just think of a society of outright egoists with no
moral scruples whatsoever (a. k. a. homines oeconomici). To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher –
in a slightly different, hypothetical way: In such a world, there would really be “no such
thing as society” – but likely no economy either.
Seen this way, moral norms, trust, “economic virtues” and the committed relationships
(loyalty, honesty, reciprocity, cooperation) they incur constitute an important economic
resource: This has been called “social capital”, denoting immaterial resources that can be
Generalized moral
norms, trust and mobilized trough networks of social relationships. They are even more important where
economic virtues legal provisions are lacking, difficult to enforce or very costly.
constitute an important
“social capital” that an Examples of such “functional” moral norms include:
economy can draw on.
• a commitment to fulfil contracts ("pacta sunt servanda")
• a businessman's “sense of honour"
• networks of relationships (inside and between organizations) built on loyalty,
friendship, care, reciprocity, cooperation and solidarity
• consumers' “moral preferences"
• compliance/adherence to the law
Actually, there's also a downside to this: All the positive effects drawn up in this list hold
when these norms are “generalized”, meaning that they are not in principle limited to a
narrow circle of individuals – in such cases, the effect may be adverse:
Where moral norms,
trust and virtues are • mafia-style organizations: They rest on high levels of trust, respect and loyalty – but
limited to an exclusive
circle, this may turn out only within a family or clan, while others are treated mainly as means for this
to be inefficient – and exclusive circle to reach its goals.
actually immoral as well.
• nepotism, favouritism, old boys networks: These phenomena imply favours among
friends that actually discriminate against outsiders.
• bribery: This is about making a donation to somebody in the hope/expectation of
some reciprocal favour, which does injustice to those that play by the rules and
actually undermines rule conformity/compliance.
• cartels, price fixing: In these cases, firms stick together to form “oligopolies”,
limiting competition and reaping high profits, at the cost of consumers, other
competitors and the economy in general.
You see, what's “moral” in one setting may be “immoral” in another one. These are the
What's “moral” (and
efficient) in one setting peculiar cases when behaviour which we would otherwise call “moral” may yield
may turn out to be undesirable results in a complex economy, because it serves some constituents at the expense
immoral (and inefficient)
in another of others: Prices go up, competitors are driven out of the market, although they may
produce better products and services and be more efficient, the distribution of wealth is
unjust and so on.

Ethics, morals and business. A brief intro to business ethics

6
 In that way, sociology, history and behavioural economics (and other newer paradigms
Descriptive ethics shows
in economics) have consistently shown that the image of economics as a discipline bereft of that the image of
values is delusive. The economy is actually embedded in a moral universe on which it economics as a
discipline bereft of
depends, upon which it feeds, and which it interacts with, changes and can exploit. Without values is delusive.
morals, therefore, there's no efficient, no legitimate business.

Morals and businesses

This not only holds for economies or markets – it holds for individual businesses as well.
In individual businesses,
Ethics and economics, morals and business are not two realms completely apart from each good management is
other. There's no necessary contradiction between them. Good management from a bigger accountable to the moral
economy of a society.
perspective is actually morally good management: It should be responsible to the moral
economy of which it is part.
It has become quite fashionable lately to talk of business ethics or Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) in terms of a “business case” (Porter und Kramer 2011). This
proposition implies that doing the morally right thing would eventually pay: It is a good The “business case” of
business decision, it says, and does not even imply an ethical decision. Examples that are ethics implies that doing
the morally right thing
given to prove this point include eventually pays.
• eco-efficient processes and devices, promising to save money by saving resources
• early movers that have been quite successful in “sustainable niches”
• the booming market for “sustainable” (green, fair, regional, low-emission) products
• the good performance of SRI (socially responsible investments)
The business case argument for business ethics, however, should not be falsely
There's also a business
understood as a simple identification in the sense that morality sells or being successful case for irresponsible
means that you did everything right. Of course, there may also be a business case for business – and it's likely
more promising still.
corporate irresponsibility, insofar as it may prove economically rational to externalize costs,
to exploit people and nature, and to overuse resources.
The “win-win” proposition between morals and business rather suggests that in a
market economy, where it is becoming increasingly important and transparent what
Still, in highly developed
companies do, how they earn their money and so on, good management has to do good and economies there's a
well – be efficient and legitimate at the same time. growing expectation that
companies do good –
This is where “ethics” as the discipline that reflects upon morals/morality comes in: It is and a growing market
that allows some of them
not per se about direction, advice or persuasion how you should act, but rather about to do well as well.
knowledge, reflection and understanding – not simply because there is no right or wrong
(in some cases this is actually not easy to determine), but because understanding why and
deciding yourself is always better than just doing what you are told.
What ethics – and this
The course shall enable you course – is eventually
about.
• to analyse, understand and resolve moral issues,
• identify moral issues in particular fields of management & economic behaviour and
• to understand various contexts in which moral issues arise.

Ethics, morals and business. A brief intro to business ethics

7
 “Ethical theory” is basically there to help you
• to clarify your position, understand why you think this or that way, make your
intuitions explicit,
• to learn, to see things differently, to make more sovereign decisions,
• to inform your decisions and take responsibility for them – not merely to justify
(rationalize) them ex-post on ethical grounds and
• to lead better lives, by widening your horizon, practice your virtues, ease your
consciousness, do something that's meaningful.

Normative ethics
That's what's usually being referred to as ethics (“ethics proper”), even though it's only
one part of it. There's “descriptive ethics” which we have been dealing with in part 1.
There's something like “explicative ethics” which takes a “meta perspective”, reflecting
upon different normative ethical theories or paradigms. That's the perspective we will take
Normative ethics (“ethics in the remainder of the unit.
proper”) is about judging
and directing behaviour Normative ethics is basically concerned with the evaluation, justification and direction
– from different aspects of behaviour based on some notion of what's good and bad (or evil). Ethics is the discipline
& through different
lenses. that reflects upon these issues. And it does this from different angles and through different
lenses.
I will try to present you some of these to give you a first impression of what an ethical
argument involves. This will necessarily be somewhat superficial – this is indeed a vast field.
However, we will get back to the different arguments repeatedly in our later course units
Roughly, arguments of and discuss them in more detail, and with concrete examples.
normative ethics can be
said to focus either on In an effort to structure this field of ethical theories, I will distinguish between theories
intentions, implications
or interactions.
that focus on intentions, interactions or implications. This seems sufficiently rough for a
start. It could certainly be done differently, as you may find out yourself whenever you
browse through any two or more textbooks on business ethics. However, it is a starting
point that draws on conventional categories and presents them in a different and
(hopefully) compelling way.

Intentions
“Intentions” focuses on individual motives of agents. These reasons for action have to be
good in themselves, unconditionally. Morally good actions are those that are done for
morally good reasons: to do good or at least to comply with some moral standard.
An intentions-based
ethics focuses on This perspective contains what's usually covered by the term “deontological” ethics,
agents' motives which
have to be good in
derived from the Greek δέον (deon), meaning something that has to be done, no matter
themselves – in extreme what. It obviously implies a sense of duty and virtue, and unconditional respect for moral
cases at all cost.
rules, rights and needs. Examples include:
• follow the ten commandments
• obey the law

Ethics, morals and business. A brief intro to business ethics

8
 • do not lie
• respect the moral or human rights of others
• care for your next of kin
• kill the infidel
In short, this conception of ethics is about doing something because it is the right thing
to do. While this is a basic trait of Kant's “categorical imperative”, based on the free use of
human reason and will, on respect for human dignity and on what we call “virtue” (we get
back to that in a second), this position may also lead to some sort of “moral absolutism”,
claiming the rigorous fulfilment of certain moral principles at all cost. That's the kind of
attitude we know from religious fundamentalists or other strong believers in the
unconditional goodness of some system of faith, combined with a Manichaean world view
of good and evil.
This perspective on ethics may be seen as the oldest or most conventional one. It is about
following a rule, either dictated by authority or – in its modern form – human reason.

Implications
“Implications” focuses on the collective consequences of actions. These results of actions
have to be good – not the agents' reasons, the “morality” of which is not relevant or
conditional upon these ends. Morally good actions are those that yield good outcomes: It's An implications-based
about doing something because it's supposedly instrumental to the best outcome for ethics focuses on
outcomes which have to
everybody involved. be good, irrespective of
motives – in extreme
This perspective contains what's usually referred to as “teleological” (or cases justifying all
“consequentialist") ethics, derived from the ancient Greek τέλος (télos), meaning some sort means.
of goal or purpose. It implies a sense for the hidden, sometimes wondrous, “emergent”
effects of human actions, an understanding that some good may come even from bad
intentions. Actually, this change of perspective has been referred to as a “paradigm change”
in the development of modern ethics. Examples include:
• lie if it helps
• self-interest, even greed is ethically neutral in that it promotes general welfare
• charity may be immoral when it keeps people dependent
• make and take bribes if it saves jobs
In short, this conception of ethics is about doing something because it (supposedly)
yields good results. While this is a basic trait of what we call soberness and pragmatism and
which we impute to “entrepreneurship” as a driving force of economic development, this
position may also justify whatever is necessary to increase some imaginary “common good”,
implying that the end justifies the means.
Still, this perspective on ethics may be seen as the typically modern one. It is about freely
promoting one's interests, “improving one's lot”, without infringing upon the interests of
others – and certainly without having to care about some traditional (often hypocritical)
canons of morality.

Ethics, morals and business. A brief intro to business ethics

9
 Actually, the imaginary good end (such as “salvation”, growth etc.) may be functionally
similar to an ethical duty – that's why I will discuss the different ethical principles later
without further reference to these paradigms: They can be viewed and argued either way.

Interactions
“Interactions” focuses on the interpersonal processes involved in decisions. It is about how
decisions are made, which makes them “good”. Morally good decisions are those that have
been derived “the right way”, i. e. based on some sort of dialogue with all those that should
have a say: because they are affected by the decision, because they have to carry it out, or
because they just know much about what's at stake.
An interactions-based
ethics focuses on the This perspective implies what I would like to refer to as “dialogical” ethics, derived from
interpersonal processes ancient Greek διάλογος (diálogos), meaning conversation, discourse or: dialogue.
involved in decision-
making– in extreme The ethical value of the actions that are derived this way is neither judged by the motives
cases, this focus on the
way leads nowhere. of those involved nor by the actual consequences of their decisions, but by the way they are
made. The decisions reached may not be the best ones, as regards motives or ends, but they
are ideally a consensus that all those involved can live with.
What's behind this assumption is a certain “relationist” perspective that holds that there
are different interests and perspectives that may make one decision seem “best” -- but that in
an ideal situation where not power, but the “best argument” or viewpoint wins the trick,
this is then the best decision: in terms of responsibility and sustainability (compared to
monological, authoritarian or paternalistic decisions), and in terms of effectiveness of such
decisions. Examples include:
• democratic decisions
• stakeholder dialogue
• those that are affected should have a say
This perspective may be seen as the typically post-modern one. It acknowledges that
there are many different ethical principles one may call upon. To derive at the best possible
decision, it is therefore necessary to commit oneself to an open dialogue of equals with
those that should have a say.
Actually, this is also the perspective I will try to convey to you throughout this course.
The fact that there are many different views, that (in many a case) none will be absolutely
right or best in terms of determining what's good and right, does not imply that “anything
goes”. Such a “relativist” or “nihilist” position would actually be only one more aspect to
bring to bear in an ethical discourse – and as we will see in a later unit, “ethical relativism”
has some merits, if only to save us from ethical ethnocentrism and bigotry.

3) Virtues and Principles. Values beyond Value

So, this sketch may give you a first hint at what different ethical paradigms typically
focus on. I will now try to sort out the most central “values” (virtues and principles) that
these paradigms draw upon to make their claims. These include

Ethics, morals and business. A brief intro to business ethics

10
 • “virtues” that relate to a person's character and define what makes a “good person”,
Virtues relate to a
such as prudence, courage, moderation, but also so-called “business virtues”, person's character, while
including fidelity, diligence or thrift. principles relate to
properties of
• “principles” that relate to properties of relationships and define what makes a “good relationships.

society”, such as freedom, welfare, justice, rights, care, responsibility, sustainability

and democracy.

Virtues
Virtues refer to agents. They are seen as desirable properties of a person's character.
Virtues have been the subject of ethical reflection ever since, and they remained in its focus
for long. Even if many ethical questions in today's highly complex societies relate to Virtues define good traits
relationships between individuals, the cultivation of character may still be a worthwhile of character, inasmuch
they are deemed
aspiration in many ways. valuable and necessary
to lead a good life.
There are traditional virtues that practically all cultures have tried to define, hold up and
cultivate, because they seemed to be necessary to lead a good life. The western concept of
virtue can be traced back to what the ancient Greeks called ἀρετή (aretḗ) and the Romans
called virtu: Both referred to some state of particular capability or excellence, usually in
relation to heroism or aristocracy. The term “virtuous”, denoting the excellent mastership
of some task (think of musicians or artists in general), reminds of this general meaning.
Both terms also carried a double meaning which we still find today:
• A person may have virtue (in the singular form), meaning that he or she is virtuous
as a whole, has integrity, unity of character.
• A person may have virtues (in the plural form), meaning that she or he has many
good qualities, which may however not have much ethical weight.
As every era has its particular virtues, today's conception of virtue does not only draw on
ancient sources, but also on the Christian tradition and on concepts of virtue that have been
promoted by the bourgeoisie, in its rise to political and economic predominance. This long We have inherited
history has left us a big heritage of different, primary and secondary “virtues”: various catalogues of
virtues, the bourgeois
• the classical “cardinal virtues”, including prudence/sagacity, justice, courage and “business virtues” being
most relevant for
moderation – classical prerequisites to live the good life economic activity.
• Christian virtues, including faith, hope and love (charity), and those seven virtues
defined in opposition to capital sins, such as humility, charity, chastity, patience,
temperance and benevolence
• special “estate” virtues pertaining to different groups of persons, such as soldiers,
men and women, knights or businessmen
• civic/bourgeois or “business virtues” such as fidelity, diligence, obedience, discipline,
sense of duty, timeliness, reliability, orderliness, correctness, politeness, cleanliness
and so on, which are usually referred to as “secondary virtues”, because they do not
refer to some conception of the good life, but instead to economic success and an
orderly and efficient functioning of a society and its economy. Indeed, insofar as

Ethics, morals and business. A brief intro to business ethics

11
 they mark bourgeois emancipation and economic autonomy, these virtues were
often ad odds with the aristocracy's virtues of the court: noblesse oblige and the belief
that “work is demeaning”.
So, what we call “virtues” is actually a result of historical, sometimes revolutionary,
sometimes even ironical developments: The bourgeois “work ethos”, e. g., has its roots (or
at least a deep affinity) in religious belief. That's what sociologist Max Weber meant to
reconstruct in his seminal work on the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Weber
1930). In its course, former vices such as greed (avaritia) were actually being rehabilitated,
insofar as they seemed “natural” and above all “useful” for the creation of value and general
welfare (Hirschman 1987).
While business virtues have a particular role to play in a capitalist economy, virtue/s
ethics in general remains an important aspect of ethical theory. It focuses on a person's
character and its formation, well beyond our capacity as economic actors. In order for an
economy and business to flourish, it needs virtuous people. And for virtue to flourish, it has
to take root in an accomodating “moral climate”. For this to happen, our business
relationships need to be good as well – that's what we turn to now.

Principles
Principles do not refer to traits of character that one should aspire to, but to properties
that characterize relationships between people: They are meant to define what a good
society should look like.
Principles define good
relationships between While “virtue ethics” is not hard to identify with the first type of ethical paradigms
people, inasmuch they
are deemed to contribute
defined earlier (the one focusing on intentions), the same is not true for most ethical
to a good society. principles. As mentioned earlier, practically all of these principles may either be seen as
motives or as ends of actions – or else as a subject of an ethical dialogue.
At best, it is possible to identify some affinities between them: Respect for the rights and
freedom of persons, e. g., or caring for concrete people will usually be conceived as motives
of actions to be realized immediately, and not left to chance. On the contrary, a principle
such as general welfare is usually defined in terms of an “unintended”, emergent outcome of
self-interested market behaviour.
Some principles, thus, have relatively close affinities with either a deontological, a
teleological or a dialogical perspective – but indeed the main difference is whether they are
aspired to directly or indirectly, vis à vis concrete people or an abstract market or society.
This said, I would like to just sketch some of the core principles of ethical theory – a much
more in-depth discussion of at least some of them will follow in later course units.

Rights
When talking about rights from an ethical perspective, it is important to distinguish
between “moral rights” that are usually bound to specific duties and so-called “human
rights” that people are endowed with unconditionally, qua birth.
Human rights denote “natural” innate entitlements of human beings, rights that are
supposed to be unconditional, universal, equal, non-destructible and independent of any

Ethics, morals and business. A brief intro to business ethics

12
single political institution or practice. As such, human rights may serve as an important
minimum foundation for corporate ethics, notably in international business, and especially
when governments don't seem to care about basic rights of their citizens. On the other
hand, the concept of human rights clearly is a western creation, and it has been and is still
being exported to other countries in the process of globalization. This is the issue with While human rights are
“ethical imperialism” vs. “ethical relativism”, when different cultures and their respective said to be unconditional,
moral rights are usually
ethical traditions interfere with each other in a global economy (cf. chapter 2). bound to particular
duties.
Moral rights on the other hand are associated with duties and the pursuit of individual,
legitimate interests. Moral rights do certainly overlap with legal rights: Yet, they cover what's
legitimate, which usually goes beyond and sometimes may even be at odds with what's
barely legal. Moral rights are usually endowed to particular groups of persons:
• the rights of consumers to information, and to decide for themselves (consumer
sovereignty)
• the rights of employees to be treated fairly
• the rights of entrepreneurs to do their business

Freedom
Freedom has been a core principle and motto of modern humanist and Enlightenment
philosophy. One of its basic claims has been to build a new, better human society based on
the free use of human reason – actually a revolutionary idea that implied claims for freedom Freedom is at the core of
of expression (speech and press), freedom to associate and freedom from torture and both economic and
political liberalism, the
servitude. Thus, claims for freedom obviously go into two different directions: former being much more
radical when it comes to
• negative freedom, i. e. freedom from traditional privileges and bonds, authoritarian the free, unhampered
and paternalistic rules, e. g. use of private property.

• positive freedom, i. e. freedom to develop one's capabilities, improve one's lot and
decide for oneself, e. g.
Seen this way, it comes clear that debates on freedom and (positive and negative) rights
have been closely linked ever since. Claims for liberty or specific liberties may be further
distinguished based on their focus and radicality:
• a libertarian view that focuses on the right to private property and its free,
unhampered use as the basis of a free and just society. Roughly speaking, this radical
view is the basis of economic liberalism and “free market” ideology.
• a liberal view that focuses on securing civic liberties by way of limiting some of
them and monopolizing them in the hand of the state, the “res publica”. Roughly
speaking, this republican view is the basis of political liberalism, favouring checks
and balances and mixed economies.
For classical economic liberalism, the free pursuit of one's economic interests lies at the
heart of a functioning, efficient market economy: If everyone is free to follow their interests,
and nobody is able to exert power on any other market player, so the assumption, the ideal
“perfectly competitive free market” will serve the needs, respect the rights and do justice to
people better than any other economic system would (cf. chapter 4). This liberal utopia –

Ethics, morals and business. A brief intro to business ethics

13
 often pictured in Adam Smith's magical image of an “invisible hand” that would harmonize
competing interests into a common good – still serves as the common point of reference for
free market campaigners.

Welfare
Welfare is the second pillar of a capitalist market economy – beside freedom. While
liberalism focuses on freedom in its own right, utilitarianism focuses on the complementary
concept of welfare, roughly speaking. Freedom and welfare, in this view, belong together,
Welfare is the second, promising a self-regulating, anti-authoritarian setting for the efficient creation of value: As
utilitarian pillar of
capitalist market
an ideal, this system reproduces freedom and utility on a regular, sustained basis. Both
economy. liberalism and utilitarianism, thus, can be safely counted among the consequentialist party
of ethical theories. Both claim that the free use of one's capabilities, in the pursuit of
happiness, will eventually promote the welfare of all.
Both liberalism and utilitarianism, therefore, accounted for the “ethical revolution” that
came with a shift of focus from virtues to vices and their potential value for the progress of
society. The ideas behind this paradigm shift, however, had not been entirely new. Welfare,
broadly speaking, is just another word for happiness – and that's what utilitarianism is
actually all about (even if its somewhat special conception may be seen as typically modern
and bourgeois). Such an “eudaemonian” view (from the ancient Greek εὐδαιμονία, most
often translated as felicity or happiness) can actually be traced back to most of ancient
Greek philosophy, most notably Aristotle. Most radically, and in the context of a secular
and atomist world view, it had been expressed as a guiding principle in Epicurean
philosophy. With the Renaissance and the loss of authority of Christian ethics in its wake,
however, eudaemonism was again slowly gaining ground in Europe. Utilitarianism,
therefore, may be seen as a distant, modern heir of this ancient tradition (Ebbersmeyer et al.
2007).
The critique put forward against Epicureans, i. e. that they were overly, even immorally
hedonistic (= “lust-seeking"), may actually be repeated with a little more right against
utilitarians. Indeed, “utility” signifies a more technical, and also a more materialist
conception of happiness -- at least in the classical formulation of Jeremy Bentham (Nasher
2008). In an utterly narrow conception of happiness as material value to be measured,
counted, accumulated and aggregated, it has come to be the paradigmatic forerunner of
“welfare indices” such as the GDP – with all its shortcomings.
Still, the acid test for morally good behaviour from a utilitarian's perspective is not
merely the increase of one's own, personal happiness (however this may be defined), but
whether this promises to increase the happiness (or welfare) of the biggest number. In that
respect, utilitarianism actually proves to be a very rigorous theory of ethics: Every choice of
action that prevents you from doing something more valuable for society is actually
immoral, according to this view.
What welfare – apart from an abstract conception of efficiency which allows no one to be
disadvantaged by a different allocation of resources – does not talk about is how it is to be
distributed. That's what justice is all about.

Ethics, morals and business. A brief intro to business ethics

14
Justice
Justice has been a central claim of ethics ever since. No wonder that there are loads of
different conceptions of what justice should mean. As we saw earlier, we usually bring to
bear an intuitive sense of justice into every economic transaction: It's part of the moral
economy. If something is seen to be unjust, this may incur moral outrage.
A look at current debates – on management bonuses, gender pay gaps and the like – Justice is at the core of
most contemporary and
reveals that justice is indeed a big issue in economic life. And what is seen to be just or historical debates on
unjust is subject to permanent change. There are different ways to bring order into the vast business ethics –
whenever it comes to the
field of debates on justice. For one, justice may focus on different aspects of economic distribution of
activity, such as opportunities and
outcomes.
• starting conditions, where justice means equal opportunities (non-discrimination).
• exchanges and processes, where justice means reciprocity (just rewards).
• the distribution of goods and services, where justice means to respect various rights
(cf. below).
The just distribution of the value created in an society has been an issue for hot debates
for milennia, ranging from Aristotle's still authoritative thoughts on the matter, over
scholastic arguments on “just prices” to the so-called “social question”: the old conflict
between capital and labour that today is usually negotiated between industry and union
representatives, based not only on questions of justice, but also on prospective effects on
welfare.
Actually, there are many different criteria one could apply in order to determine what's
just or unjust in the distribution of goods and services. Decisions may be based on
• basic needs or universal rights (entitlements)
• contribution (meritocratic)
• contracts (fairness)
• equal rights (egalitarian)
• chance (random)
• privilege (accrued rights)
• compensation (corrective, retributive)
• sustainability (intergenerational)
What is just or unjust, however, usually cannot be resolved by simply pointing at an
abstract principle. The following, more recent debates hold that morally good decisions
need to be based firmly in human relationships.

Care
The principle of care has been introduced into the recent ethical discussion by feminist
thinkers like Carol Gilligan. It claims to be based on many of our immediate moral impulses
and intuitions pertaining to special responsibilities to special people (Velasquez 2011).

Ethics, morals and business. A brief intro to business ethics

15
 A feminist ethics of care is explicitly opposed to abstract intellectual claims of what's
morally right or wrong. Seen this way, ethics is not about following supposedly universal or
impartial principles, but about attending and responding to the particular good of
Care is about particular individual personal relationships. An ethics of care holds that we should value our
responsibilities to
particular people – an
relationships, preserve and nurture them and care for the people that depend on us.
ethics that's relevant
when dealing with
Care in that sense is never aloof and detached, but always concrete in the act of “caring
immediate stakeholders. for somebody particular”. It is basically about relationships that may be characterized by
compassion, concern, love, friendship and kindness. In business ethics, such an ethics of
care will probably be most relevant when it comes to dealing with employees, colleagues,
customers and other immediate stakeholders to which we may entertain relationships based
on loyalty – actually, as we saw earlier, this may turn out to be an important social capital
for a business.

Responsibility
Responsibility has again gained popularity with the proliferation of concepts such as
“Corporate Social Responsibility”. As an ethical term, “responsibility” is actually relatively
young – it hadn't been used until the early nineteenth century (Bayertz 1995). Actually, it is
not about any particular ethical principle (such as the ones presented earlier), but about
whether and how some morally bad acts can be rightly attributed to somebody – and,
Responsibility is about therefore, whether and how this person has to answer for these acts.
answering for the
consequences of one's Other than duty or guilt, responsibility focuses on the consequences of one's actions –
actions – even if they
were not intended. even if one had not wanted or been able to foresee these consequences. So, it is basically
about being accountable for the outcomes of one's actions. The growing importance of
responsibility mirrors the development of modern society, which is marked by an extensive
division of labour. Under such conditions, the effects of one's behaviour may be neither
clear nor intended.
Specifically, this issue comes up when we look at organizations, including corporations.
There's an intricate ethical debate going on about whether and in what sense corporations
may be “responsible” in the first place (French 1992; Maring 2005). Even though there are
different views on whether they could and should be made morally responsible, there is
some consensus about a few things:
• Corporations and organizations in general are not mere aggregates of individuals,
therefore the outcomes of corporate behaviour are not merely the sum total of
individual acts, but an emergent result likely not intended by any particular individual.
Thus, it may be unjust to lay the blame on some individual “scapegoat”.
• Corporations contain particular structures and cultures which may “channel”
Corporations can be
made responsible for individual acts in certain directions, i. e. these individuals are not acting freely.
ethical, theoretical and Therefore, it may be more effective to change the organization – not just exchange the
practical reasons – in
addition to individual individuals – in order to prevent irresponsible behaviour in the future.
actors.
• Corporations (or their legal successors) have to take responsibility when individual
actors can no longer be made responsible for what they did. Therefore, it may make
practical sense to make corporations responsible, if otherwise no one would be.

Ethics, morals and business. A brief intro to business ethics

16
 For these theoretical, ethical and practical reasons, it seems justified to endow
corporations with some shared responsibility, in addition to the responsibility of individual
actors. Actually, in corporate criminal law, this view was adopted in the Austrian
Verbandsverantwortlichkeitsgesetz.
Apart from this rather sophisticated debate on corporate responsibility, there's the more
popular debate on CSR that had actually been initiated by businesses – in an effort to
answer growing critique of corporate social irresponsibility in the wake of globalization. The popular debate on
This critique or moral outrage focused on three general issues: corporate fraud, illoyalty (to CSR had actually been
launched by
particular sites and communities) and the exploitation of social and ecological resources. corporations
Concepts such as Corporate Governance, Corporate Citizenship and Corporate Social themselves, for
Responsibility, having been reintroduced into the debate in the late 1990s, can be seen as defensive reasons.

efforts to give answers to these particular “moral crises” of the corporate world.
We will recurrently get back to a discussion of Corporate Social Responsibility
throughout this course. At this point, it will suffice to distinguish the concept (as an ideal
notion) from the two others just introduced. I will distinguish them with respect to their
relation to the process of value creation. Seen this way, CSR – even in a narrow “business
case” sense of the term – still proves to be the most demanding and promising of these
concepts.
• Corporate Citizenship focuses on “giving back to society”, it is basically about “doing
good and talking about it”, a new strategic approach to philanthropy that's concerned
with general “social issues”, not the company's own business, i.e. the process of value Due to constant pressure
creation. by civil society groups,
CSR has become a fairly
• Corporate Governance focuses on “moral risk” (on the part of management), it is demanding concept,
even in the narrow sense
basically about securing the interests of shareholders (the principals), preserving trust of a “business case” – at
and, therefore, the flow of capital, a rather conventional, neo-classical view that least in theory.
identifies corporate social responsibility with profit-maximizing, implying that this
would be per se in the general interest.
• Corporate Social Responsibility focuses on “internalization”, it is basically about
answering legitimate claims made on the part of society, based on an understanding of
the firm as a social institution that's embedded in a moral universe. In such an ideal
understanding, CSR includes responsibility for its core business, along the entire value
chain, for economic as well as social and ecological consequences, and vis-à-vis all
stakeholders that have a legitimate interest in its operations.
Actually, even if CSR in theory is a very demanding concept, there's an ongoing debate
about whether it should be seen as a “business case” (basically counting on changes in
society that a company would react to “voluntarily”) or as a “moral case” (basically
demanding that corporations be responsible for immoral acts no matter what). Practically,
this is also a debate about what binding regulations are needed to hold a company to
account, or whether this should be left to the discretion of management and to the
sanctions of the market.

Ethics, morals and business. A brief intro to business ethics

17
 Sustainability
In ethics, this is actually a rather new concept (cf. chapter 8). The word “sustainability”
was originally coined in forestry – even though the notion (or rather a hunch of what's not
sustainable) may be much older: This accounts for the fact that wood, for centuries, had
been the most important resource, as a fuel, building material and pulp. Ironically, this
original problem of sustainability seemed to be solved with the very discovery of fossil fuels,
Sustainability is the such as coal, petrol and gas. Many forests, back until ancient times, had fallen victim to the
imperative of our time,
pinpointing the limits of insatiable hunger for wood, which left some of Europe's countryside eroded. So, with this
our current, one- 19th century “energy revolution”, the woods could finally be renewed (Grober 2010).
dimensional ways of
acting and thinking. The problem of sustainability – more precisely: sustainable development – eventually
re-entered the global stage a little more than a century later, at the foreseeable end of the
“fossil age”. In its still most prominent, general definition, issued in 1987 by the so-called
Brundtland Commission, “[s]ustainable development is development that meets the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs” (WCED 1987).
As an ethical principle, sustainability adds three aspects to the debate:
• It is about integrating different claims into a conception of the good life. Sustainable
development is not only about saving the environment, but about developing societies
in ways that can be sustained. Therefore, it is vital to find a compromise between
ecological, economic and social claims, or better still: To see in what respects these
overlap, interact an how they may be realized in a joint way.
• It adds the dimension of limits to the classical principles. Sustainability is about limits
that we face in almost all realms of life, be it resources, space or time.
• It focuses specifically on responsibility for future generations, calling for
“intergenerational justice” as a principle we have to bear in mind in all our decisions.
Sustainability actually also is an aspect of how we relate to each other, how we make
decisions – for the simple reason that what is supposed to be “sustainable” often has to be
subject to an informed debate: Only decisions that include those that have to carry them
out or are affected by them can be sustainable. This brings us to principle of democracy.

Democracy
Democracy no doubt constitutes a core institution of our society. We proud ourselves of
living in a democracy, including the rights of free expression and to take part in the political
process. Ironically, still, democracy is very much limited to this political realm, and to
Democracy is an ethical representative forms of democracy – while the citizens' (the sovereign's) say is limited to
ideal based on the belief
that decisions should be
periodic elections and media-informed control of delegates who take the actual decisions. In
made by those affected, the economic realm, democracy is generally a rather exotic phenomenon. While in most
in ways that assure the companies, strict hierarchical structures and chains of command are predominant, there are
emergence of some form
of “communicative individual efforts to initiate democratic structures in companies.
rationality”.
To appreciate the ethical value of democratic decisions, we can reiterate what was said
about the dialogical paradigm of ethics. It actually refers to interactions, to the process of
decision-making – not to the motives of those involved, nor on the eventual results of such

Ethics, morals and business. A brief intro to business ethics

18
decisions. Indeed, to quote Winston Churchill, from a speech held before the House of
Commons in 1947: “Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other
forms that have been tried from time to time."
Just as democracy refers to the very process of decision-making, it has to be judged by its
own ideal. Actually, this democratic ideal has been fashioned after the ethical dialogue,
where all those that should have a say may take part freely in the exchange of reasoned
arguments. According to this ideal, this not only precludes anybody from taking power,
systematically discriminating against others, or pushing through with their interests at the
expense of others. It also holds the promise that the best arguments will be heard and
eventually inspire the decision – not mere power or influence.
This reflects the ideal of so-called discourse ethics which holds that, in an ideal speech
situation, where people exchange arguments irrespective of actual differences in power and
influence, something like a “communicative rationality” is at work and helps to derive at
good decisions. In practice, this ideal may be unreachable. Still, it may serve as a valuable
benchmark for stakeholder dialogues, but also for decisions to be made in work groups or
governance bodies of big corporations.
The following case study, in a nutshell, brings up much of what was said in this chapter,
in the form of a true ethical dilemma. Despite its simple setting, “doing the right thing” is
neither easy nor clear-cut. The case's main purpose, then, is to explicate and understand our
moral intuitions, and together to find a way to reach a morally legitimate decision – quick.

The Cave Rescue, an “ethical dilemma” of sorts Philosophers seem to like caves to make a point: Just

L
think of Socrates' classical “allegory of the cave” to illustrate our limits of perception and conception (we just
see the passing shadows which we stubbornly take for reality). The case at stake is not about ontology (what
“is”?) or epistemology (can we “know”, what and how?), but about ethics: What are we to do?
Think of a group of tourists. They were on an adventurous trip to visit a well-known cave. All of a sudden, a
part of the cave near the entry collapsed. Nobody died, but now the group is caught inside the cave. A rescue
team has been alarmed by the cave authority. The situation as it reveals itself to the rescue team is as such:
The five people (four tourists and their seasoned guide) gathered at a spot with access to an interphone
system, therefore they can communicate with the rescue team. According to the information from inside the
cave, one person was badly hurt by the collapse, and the cave is quickly filling up with water. The captives
will have to be rescued with a winch, through a narrow emergency shaft – one by one, and quick. It is very
likely that the rescue team will be able to rescue one person, yet the odds of any other successful rescue are
getting worse every minute. So, the rescue team faces a dilemma: Whom should they rescue first?
- A little girl, 12 years old. She was seriously wounded in the cave collapse. Her rescue will likely take twice
the time as in the case of the others.
- Her mother, who has another three little children waiting for her at home.
- A medical researcher, a misanthrope, but also a real genius, supposedly about to discover a cure for
cancer. He is so distrustful that he made no notes but has it all in his head.
- A good samaritan who has already saved uncounted lives.
- The cave guide, who is also the brother of one of the rescue team.
Whom would you choose to bring out first, when it is sure that you can save one person? What options are
there to reach a decision that can be ethically justified?

Ethics, morals and business. A brief intro to business ethics

19
 Bibliography
Alvard, M. 2004. The Ultimatum Game, Fairness, and Cooperation among Big Game Hunters. In
Foundations of Human Sociality: Ethnography and Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies, Hrsg. J.
u. a. Henrich, 413–435. Oxford.
Bayertz, Kurt. 1995. Eine kurze Geschichte der Herkunft der Verantwortung. In Verantwortung: Prinzip
oder Problem?, Hrsg. Kurt Bayertz, 3–71. Darmstadt.
Easterly, William. 2002. The Elusive Quest for Growth. Economists’ Adventures and Misadventures in the
Tropics. Cambridge, Mass.
Ebbersmeyer, Sabrina, Eckhard Keßler, und Martin Schmeisser, Hrsg. 2007. Ethik des Nützlichen. Texte
zur Moralphilosophie im italienischen Humanismu. Paderborn.
French, Peter A. 1992. Die Korporation als moralische Person. In Wirtschaft und Ethik, Hrsg. Hans Lenk
und Matthias Maring, 317–328. Stuttgart.
Granovetter, Mark. 1994. Business Groups. In Handbook of Economic Sociolog, Hrsg. Neil Smelser und
Richard Swedberg, 453–475. Princeton.
Grober, Ulrich. 2010. Die Entdeckung der Nachhaltigkeit. Kulturgeschichte eines Begriffs. München.
Hessel, Stéphane. 2011. Empört euch! Berlin.
Hirschman, Albert O. 1987. Leidenschaften und Interessen. Politische Begründungen des Kapitalismu
vor seinem Sieg. Frankfurt am Main.
Maring, Matthias. 2005. Verantwortung und Mitverantwortung in Korporationen. In Ethisches
Management. Grundlagen eines wert(e)orientierten Führungskräfte-Kodex, Hrsg. Alexander Brink
und Victor A. Tiberius, 449–479. Bern - Stuttgart - Wien.
Nasher, Jack. 2008. Die Moral des Glücks. Eine Einführung in den Utilitarismu. Berlin.
Porter, Michael E., und Mark R. Kramer. 2011. Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review 89: 62–
77.
Thompson, E. P. 1971. The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century. Past and
Present 50: 76–136.
Velasquez, Manuel G. 2011. Business Ethics. Concepts and Cases. London.
Weber, Max. 1930. The Prostestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York - London
https://archive.org/download/protestantethics00webe/protestantethics00webe.pdf.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Report of the World
Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. http://www.un-
documents.net/our-common-future.pdf.

Dirk Raith, 30/03/15

Ethics, morals and business. A brief intro to business ethics

20