| | A corporation can have no moral worth
This argument begins with economist Milton Freidman's stockholder theory. Friedman's theory says the sole duty of a business is to increase its profits. That is its only moral obligation: to make financial returns for those who invest their money in the company. All actions taken by the corporation, even if they seem philanthropic, are always taken with the bottom line in mind. For instance, why would a cigarette company spend millions of dollars on teen anti-smoking ads?
Is it because they want to do good for the community? Not directly. If there is a payoff - like a more favorable public opinion - that has a theoretical dollar value that factors into the balance sheet, and often outweighs the cost of the advertising. Sometimes, it is in the best interests of the stockholders to also do good for the community.
The core of the issue is that corporations serve to protect their profit margins first, because profit is their “chief good.” Aristotle says that “happiness” is the chief good for the rest of humanity. Does that sound like a conflict of interest?
While corporations have been known to build parks and fund social programs, they can’t possibly be doing those things for the right reasons, for the intrinsic value of the good deeds themselves.
According to Kant, good deeds can be segregated into two distinct tiers. The first tier is the set of good deeds that were performed as means to an end. Kant calls this kind of good deed a "qualified good." The second tier is the set of good deeds that were performed for their own sake. Those deeds are ends unto themselves. This mindset, where people do good things intrinsically, is what Kant calls "good will."
So, is a corporation even capable of an act of "good will" ? Unless you count stockholder dividends as righteous deeds, the answer is no. For example, imagine you’re a stockholder who just made a lot of money investing in a company. You feel like a big shot for once. Kant says that being happy in this fashion will make you a total jerk, unless you are tempered by an internally mature good will. With the exception of certain stockholder meetings, the unfortunate truth is that the system is set up so that as a stockholder, you don’t talk to management all that often, and that means that you cannot imbue any of your good will on the will of the company. It’s a financially mediated relationship, so your money does all the talking. Further, you, as a stockholder, probably do not value money intrinsically. You value what that money will buy you: a new Lamborghini, a diamond necklace, or a pet mongoose. That’s why you’re investing your money: as means to an end. That is, at best, a “qualified good.” Suddenly, it becomes impossible for the company to be a moral agent, because the only loyalties it holds are to investors whose choices to invest are motivated extrinsically, and therefore devoid of good will.
-TBF-
|
| | Posted 11/29/2006 10:59 PM - 171 Views - 0 eProps - 0 comments
- recommend
  - recs0
- share
- email
 - sent0
|
