Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

Dan Kidha Kidha

Writing Sample submitted for the Application for PhD in Religion, Ethics and Public Life at the
Northwestern University
 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

Ethics Defined

Taylor (1975) defines ethics as inquiry into the nature and grounds of morality where

the term morality is taken to mean moral judgments, standards and rules of conduct. Hsing –

Chau Tseng et al (2009) defines ethics as the study and philosophy of human conduct with an

emphasis on the determination of either right or wrong. Accordingly, ethics involves defining,

evaluating and understanding concepts of right and wrong behaviour. Contrary to popular

opinion, ethical and legal constructs are not always the same thing. Ethical often outline conduct

that exceeds what may be the legal requirements of society. Hsing – Chau Tseng adds that

business ethics can be both a normative and a descriptive discipline [ CITATION Hsi20 \p 587 \l 4105

].

With these definitions in mind, this study seeks to investigate the implications of Kant’s

moral doctrine to businesses and organizations. It simply asks the question, what are the

implications of the categorical imperative to business?

This study begins with a description of the categorical imperative to form a

measurement tool – its meaning, obligations, objections and implications for organization are

explored. Secondly, the study investigates the relationship between moral codes and the

categorical imperative in business and organization management. Finally, this study explores the

question of responsibility in organizations. Two models are investigated in the light of Kantian

thought: personal responsibility versus collective responsibility before finally considering a

hybrid of both.
 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative

Kant lived and wrote during a period in European intellectual history called the

“Enlightenment” which stretched from the mid-seventeenth century to the early nineteenth

century. This is period that produced the ideas about human rights and democracy that inspired

the French and American revolutions.

The characteristic quality of the enlightenment was an immense confidence in “reason” –

that is, in humanity’s ability to solve problems through logical analysis. Enlightenment thinkers

like Kant felt that history had placed them in the unique position of being able to provide clear

arguments for their beliefs (Philips, 2002, p. 4). The ideas of earlier generations, they thought,

had been determined by myths and traditions; though their own ideas were based on reason.

Kant’s philosophical goal was to use logical analysis to understand reason itself. He

argued that before we embarked on the process of analyzing our world, we must have a good

grasp of the mental tools we would be using. Thus in the Critique of Pure Reason (Kant, 1900)

he set about developing a comprehensive picture of how our mind-our “reason” – receives and

processes information.

Kant mentioned that his inspiration towards the undertaking of such a project was David

Hume (1711-76), the Scottish philosopher who woke him up from intellectual “slumber.” The

revolutionising idea was Hume’s analysis of cause-and-effect relationships. Kant proceeded

further with this idea, arguing that it is not just an idea that we employ to make sense of our

perceptions. Rather, it is a concept that we cannot help but employ [ CITATION Bri02 \p 5 \l 4105 ].

According to Kant, causation and a number of other basic ideas – time and space, for instance –
 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

are hardwired, as it were, into our minds. Thus whenever we try to understand what we see, we

cannot help but think in terms of causes and effects (Kant, 1979).

In the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant (1979) applies the technique of

using reason to determine what moral choices we should make. He tries to develop a moral

philosophy that depends only on the fundamental concepts of reason. He contends that just as we

cannot rely on our picture of the world for knowledge about how the world really is, so we

cannot rely on our expectations about events in the world in developing moral principles.

This thinking has not gone without question. Recent philosophers and scholars have

criticized Enlightenment philosophers like Kant for placing too much confidence in reason,

arguing that rational analysis isn’t the best way to deal with moral questions [ CITATION Foo72 \l

4105 ]. Others have argued that the Enlightenment thinkers were, in fact pompous to think that

they could discover the timeless truth of reason and that in fact, their ideas were determined by

their culture just as all other people’s are[ CITATION Mar95 \l 4105 ].

Further, some have gone to the extent of associating Enlightenment with the crimes of

imperialism, noting a similarity between the idea of reason dispelling myth and the idea that

western people have a right and a duty to supplant less “advanced” civilizations [ CITATION

Lou00 \l 4105 ].

The goal of the Grounding for Metaphysics of Morals was to develop a clearer

understanding of moral principles, so that people may better avert distractions [ CITATION Bri02 \l

4105 ]. Accordingly, as it is, people generally assume that moral principles must apply to all
 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

rational beings at all places and all times. Thus moral principles must be based on concepts of

reason as opposed to particularities of culture or personality.

Several general principles about moral duties may be advanced. First, actions are moral if

and only if they are undertaken for the sake of morality alone – that is, without any ulterior

motive. Second, the moral quality of an action is judged, not according to the action’s

consequences, but according to the motive that produced it. Third, actions are moral if and only

if they are undertaken out of respect for the moral law [ CITATION Alt07 \l 4105 ][ CITATION Bri02 \p

7 \l 4105 ].

The moral law must be a general formula that is applicable in all situations. This is

because, rather than command specific actions; it must express the principle that actions should

be undertaken with pure motives, without consideration of consequences, and out of pure

reverence for law. The formula postulated for this is: we should act in such a way that we could

want the maxim of our action to become a universal law[ CITATION Alt07 \l 4105 ]. Even though

the operating assumption is that people generally have a decent intuitive sense for this law, Kant

(1979) argued that it would be helpful for philosophy to state the law clearly so that people can

keep it in mind.

Moral principles, Kant posed, should come from reason, not from experience for all

experiences depend on particular circumstances, whereas moral principles must have absolute

validity, independent of all circumstances (Kant, 1964)

This general formula – which is reason’s fundamental moral principle, is what Kant

referred to as the “categorical imperative.” The categorical imperative may be expressed

 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

according to the same formula as the moral law: act only in such a way that you could want the

maxim of your action to become a universal law. Thus when people violate the categorical

imperative, they apply a different standard to their own behaviour than they would want applied

to everyone else in the form of a universal law[ CITATION Bri02 \p 7 \l 4105 ] . Kant (1979)

reasoned that such a contradiction was a violation of the principles of reason.

The Categorical imperative may also be formulated as a requirement that we must not

treat other rational beings as mere means to our own purposes[ CITATION Bri02 \p 8 \l 4105 ].

Obligations to the (Categorical Imperative) Moral Law

The argument so far has established what the moral law is, but has not demonstrated why

we feel we should be moral. Accordingly, the basis of morality is the concept of freedom – the

ability to give away your own will.

Kant holds that the fundamental principle of our moral duties is a categorical imperative.

It is an imperative because it is a command (e.g., “Leave the pen. Take the paper.”) More

precisely, it commands us to exercise our wills in a particular way, not to perform some action or

other. It is categorical in virtue of applying to us unconditionally, or simply because we possess

rational wills, without reference to any ends that we might or might not have. It does not, in other

words, apply to us on the condition that we have antecedently adopted some goal for

ourselves[ CITATION Hin10 \l 4105 ].

Kant defines virtue as “the moral strength of a human being's will in fulfilling his duty”

(6:405) and vice as principled immorality. Thus it may seem that for virtue to prevail the

individual must master the moral strength to fulfill his duty. Duty, being inseparable from human
 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

life therefore provides fertile ground for Kant’s enforcing his moral doctrine. The categorical

imperative, therefore, binds every rational being to make moral judgments and consequent

actions. It is not suggestive, but rather demands, only this time a rational process is involved in

both the decision making and the execution of the desirable action. Thus every human is obliged

to obey the categorical imperative every time and every where.

Since an individual is the same when jogging and when eating, then they must be the

same when working, doing business, swimming and shopping too. Hence one must always act

with the same moral law. The categorical imperative, therefore, obliges even businesses and

organizations to act morally. It would be argued that without a moral social backdrop business

would not be able to function. Corporations are an integral part of our society, and they reflect

our values as surely and as well as any of our other institutions. Yet, there is great confusion

when it comes to discussing values -- especially moral or ethical values -- and business. People

in business rarely do so publicly, and non-business people who raise the issues seem to do so

polemically -- either to attack business or to defend it.

Objections to the (Categorical Imperative) Moral Law

Critics of the Categorical Imperative argue that organisations do not have the

predispositions that would make them bound to it. Their first argument is that an artificial,

nonmaterial entity is not subject to natural laws or affected by desires, and as such cannot be

tempted to act wrongly[ CITATION Alt07 \p 257 \l 4105 ]. By way of example, Altman contends:

Despite its seeming similarity to our desire for happiness, a company cannot be said to
have the profit motive anymore than the state can crave tax revenues. Members of the
congress may want the money to spend, and majority of the citizens may support tax
increase, but the state itself cannot want anything. Similarly, employees may be
 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

motivated to increase profits, even at the expense of their moral obligations, but to say
that the business desires profit is imprecise. For states and corporations, there is no self-
interest to attempt them away from the demands of duty [ CITATION Alt07 \p 257 \l 4105 ].
The second objection posited against use of the Categorical Imperative in Organizations

is that, having no rational nature, they can neither be said to reason nor legislate moral

laws[ CITATION Alt07 \p 257 \l 4105 ] . They do not have the capacity to perform moral actions or

make moral decisions. Any attribute towards morality may only be used in a metaphorical sense

just in the same way we can say a school needs to be investigated or a cow wants to be washed.

The contention is that an organization has no “faculty of freedom” in the relevant sense of the

term[ CITATION Kan \l 4105 ] . Thus the organization, being merely a legal entity, has no

consciousness of moral constraint and thus no humanity in the sense that Kant understands it

[ CITATION Alt07 \p 257 \l 4105 ]. This makes sense particularly if Kant’s thinking is clearly

understood: that is, the fact of reason proves that one is a moral agent who is necessitated by the

law[ CITATION Kan \l 4105 ].

By implication, Altman (2007) maintains that “Kant is gaining popularity in business

ethics because the categorical imperative rules out actions such as deceptive advertising and

exploitative working conditions, both of which treat people merely as means to an end (2007, p.

253).” To him, those who apply Kant this way often hold businesses themselves morally

accountable (2007, p. 253). He even posits that the conception of collective responsibility

contradicts the kind of moral agency that underlies Kant’s ethics.

Altman’s (2007) central argument is that businesses [and organizations in general] have

neither the inclinations nor the capacity to reason thereby lacking the conditions necessary for

constraint by the moral law.

 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

…corporate policies ought to be understood as analogous to legal constraints. They may

encourage or discourage certain actions, but they cannot determine a person’s maxim –
which for Kant is the focus of moral judgment. Because there is no collective intention
apart from any intentions of the individual agents who act as members of the corporation,
an organization itself has no moral obligations [ CITATION Alt07 \p 253 \l 4105 ]
Altman is not in good company though. He finds stiff resistance in Bowie who says:

When an organization is viewed as an instrument for the achievement of one’s own ends
then it appears that a person is simply using the organization for their own ends. This
would violate the second formulation of the categorical imperative (Bowie, 1999, pp. 83-
84).
Bowie argues that a business must be treated as an end in itself and never as a means. He

stakes his claim in the argument that a business is a moral agent and owing to that capacity to be

responsible they have moral obligations (Bowie, 1999, pp. 83-84).

But Altman rebuts that it may be argued that placing ethical constraints on business

decisions is misguided, that business is a game with its own rules, where deception is not only

useful but expected. [ CITATION Alt07 \p 254 \l 4105 ]. He adds:

Many authors claim that social obligations should in certain cases restrict the profit
motive… and Kantian ethics has been used to support this view: wealth is conditionally
good, but a good will is the only thing that is good without qualification. The actions of
business people can thus be judged against moral principles, which are unsurprising,
since business decisions are a kind of human action and all human actions are morally
constrained…. By Contrast, many theoretical orientations in business ethics, including
supposedly Kantian approaches, depend on the assumption that we can assess the
morality of corporate actions apart from the decisions of particular business people –
praising Johnson & Johnson or condemning Philip Morris rather than the members of
their ever changing board of directors [ CITATION Alt07 \p 254 \l 4105 ].”
Implications for Organizations

The categorical imperative has far reaching implications to organizations. In the first

case, it contends that we ought not to treat people merely as a means but as instead with respect

for personhood and humanity. Since organizations are run by people, it logically ensues that the
 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

way people are treated in an organization determines whether it (the organization) is ethically

upright or not.

It is also argued that organizations have the capacity to make transactions and thus

qualifies for ethical judgment. Altman has written:

Because a business has its own characteristic decision procedures, and because it acts in
ways that are morally relevant, it seems that the business itself is subject to moral
scrutiny. This is true primarily because responsibility is diffused across a number of
different corporate positions, such that assigning responsibility is often unfeasible except
in terms of the corporation as a whole.[ CITATION Alt07 \p 255 \l 4105 ]
By example, he (Altman) argues that when a business contaminates drinking water, it is

the result of what is produced and how it is produced, as well as corporate policies regarding the

disposal of chemical waste – and all the workers, administrators, and investors who contribute to

this lengthy process. There are many causes that give rise to the eventual effect [ CITATION

Alt07 \p 255 \l 4105 ] . He however adds that although evaluating corporate actions does not

preclude individual responsibility, there are some cases in which responsibility cannot be

attributed to any particular agent(s). In this sense therefore, personal responsibility may not

adequately address the morality of at least some business decisions.

If businesses act in the morally relevant sense, we can apply the different versions of the

categorical imperative to determine the moral permissibility or impermissibility of corporate

policies for the formula of universal law rules out deceptive business practices [ CITATION Alt07 \p

255 \l 4105 ]. Ultimately, it is agreeable that personal moral philosophies quite uniquely

determine individual output in organization management. Vitell et al summarizes their study

thus:
 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

We have shown that personal moral philosophies have a direct impact on the perception
of ethics and moral responsibility. Again, more idealistic individuals tend to follow more
universal moral rules of behaviour, whereas the more relativistic individuals feel that a
moral action is defined by the nature of the situation and the person confronted by an
ethical dilemma.[ CITATION Placeholder1 \p 478 \l 4105 ]
Thus the more aligned individual philosophies are, the more coherently they will pull

together to achieve the organizations goals and objectives. If a disparity exists as noted by Vitell

et al then a conflict ensues and consequently the organization’s management is disturbed. It

would thus be fitting in the pattern of the categorical imperative to design a pattern of reasoning

that allows for consistency indecision making. A pattern of reasoning would effectively control

the disparity created by different individual philosophies within the organization. Whether

idealistic or relativistic, decision-making will have the benefit of reflection within a clearly

defined pattern thereby bringing the most desirable results. Such a pattern is found in the

categorical imperative or better still the moral reasoning designs.

Organizations are inseparable from their stakeholders, who are in fact, moral agents

subject to ethical choices. This inevitably subjects every organization to ethical scrutiny. Altman

admits that this is especially true primarily because responsibility is diffused across a number of

different corporate positions, such that assigning responsibility is often unfeasible except in

terms of the corporation as a whole[ CITATION Alt07 \p 255 \l 4105 ]. He adds that although

evaluating corporate actions does not preclude individual responsibility, there are some cases in

which we cannot attribute responsibility to any particular agent(s). Thus personal responsibility

seems inadequate to address the morality of at least some business decisions [ CITATION Alt07 \p

255 \l 4105 ].

Ethical Foundations for Organization: Code of Ethics?

 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

John Bruhn (2009) has said that every organization has formed a moral identity, that is, it

has taken a position purposefully or inadvertently, formally or informally, establishing its

boundaries of moral and amoral behaviour (2009, p. 206). He (Bruhn) adds that an organization

takes a stand, by its own actions or inactions, by asserting how it collectively will act and how

individuals in it are expected to act. It would be expected, therefore, that a code of ethics is quite

necessary for ensuring the maintenance of such positions. As Scott et al would put it: We assume

that by employing a code of ethics, one can reduce the likelihood of unethical practices through

communicating expectations to all the participants and providing an effective method for

reporting abuse. (Scott, John, Vitell, 2010, p. 471) …in this way, he adds, “The importance of

instituting a code of ethics to formalize ethical behaviour is supported” (Scott, John, Vitell, 2010,

p. 471).

According to Mitchell et al, researchers have consistently argued that the ethical climate

of the work context is largely shaped by organizational managers. Thus, to assist managers in

establishing and maintaining an ethical climate, organizations have implemented formal systems

of ethical codes, corporate ethics audits, standardized procedures and ethics training programmes

(Neubert, 2009, p. 159).

Quoting Stevens, Luis Rodriguez-Dominguez et al defines ethical codes as “written

documents through which corporations hope to shape employee behaviour and produce change

by making explicit statements as to desired behaviour” [ CITATION Lui09 \p 188 \l 4105 ] . He adds

that “they clarify the objectives that the company pursues, the norms and values that it upholds

and those things for which it may be accountable. Luis Rodriguez-Dominguez et al further states

that more recently, according to Luis Rodriguez – Dominguez et al, Kaptein and Schwartz
 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

defined a code of ethics as “a distinct and formal document containing a set of prescriptions

developed by and for a company to guide present and future behaviour on multiple issues for at

least its managers and employees toward each other, the company, external stakeholders, and/or

society in general”[ CITATION Lui09 \p 188 \l 4105 ] . Cynthia et al on the other hand defines codes

of ethics as formalized public statements of corporate principles and rules of conduct that govern

interorganizational and intraorganizational practices and relations [ CITATION Cyn09 \p 607 \l

4105 ].

In terms of the codes objectives, there may be a somewhat instrumental reason for

adopting codes, because they can help preserve or legitimate a reputable public image and

prevent public criticism (Bondy et al., 2004, p.450). A code of ethics is a guide to both present

and future behaviour and specifies corporate ethical values and the responsibility of employees

to one another and to organizational stakeholders (Cynthia, Stohl, 2009, p. 607). Fleege and

Adrian (2004, p. 1) have mentioned that codes can be reasonably designed to prevent wrong-

doing and promote:

1. Honest and ethical behaviour, including the ethical handling of actual or apparent

conflicts of interest in personal and professional relationships;

2. Compliance with applicable government laws, rules and regulations;

3. An increase in social responsibility; and

4. An improvement in management and in corporate culture.

Noting Peters and Waterman’s discovery, Scott et al asserts that successful companies

typically have a well defined code of values that are shared throughout the

organization[ CITATION Placeholder1 \p 471 \l 4105 ].

 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

A code of ethics helps to define borders within the organization, thereby clearing the gray

areas that may create conflict or lead to misconduct within the organization. According to Bruhn,

the occurrence of gray area dilemmas are usually more common in organizations where ‘ethics is

not ‘integrated all the way through’ the organization and the organization does not function as a

moral community[ CITATION Joh09 \p 206 \l 4105 ].

Most authors seem to be in agreement that there ought to be a code of ethics for every

organization. What seems unsettled is whether each organization should set up its own code of

ethics or whether there should be a universal canon. However, a code of ethics, whether

organizational or universal defies Kantian theory that calls for a rational approach to ethical

decision – making. The rule theory, He (Kant) would argue just like Rene ten Bos (1997) does,

that it will breed the bureaucratic mentality.

Of the bureaucratic mentality, Rene ten Bos says:

Bureaucrats are not basically interested in debating the goals of the organization they are
working for, but narrowly focuses on the task that is to be carried out: they accept that the
significant of the job is never related to the person who carries it out, but rather to what
other people believe the job is meant for; they see the world as a bundle of problems
which are solvable in a rational and scientific way; they abhor unpredictability,
spontaneity and chance; and they refrain form personal opinion and accept whatever the
‘organization’ claims to be true[ CITATION Bos97 \p 998 \l 4105 ].

Sounding good as it may be, a code of ethics is inconsistent with Kantian philosophy if it

is projected as a set of rules to be followed without individual reflection on the purpose and

result. Kant would object to the reduction of individuals into moral robots who follow some

legalistic pattern of behaviour as if they had no capacity to reason. For organizations to develop

meaningful and agreeable1 ethical codes that follow the Kantian pattern they must first learn the
1
The argument is agreeable according to Kantian thinking. Kant was a deontologist; deontological theories are duty based. What
makes actions right or wrong are not the consequences. The categorical imperative states: “Act according to a maxim which can,
at the same time, be valid as a universal law.”
 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

moral norms. As Peck (2007) has written, his (Kant) categorical imperative does not provide a

robot-like test for the untutored, as some critics suggest[ CITATION Pec07 \p 209 \l 4105 ].

Peck continues, to clear up common misunderstandings, one must go beyond Kant’s

Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1981/1785) to his Metaphysics of Morals

(1964/1797)… where one will find Kant’s beliefs about moral education – an education

necessary for using the categorical imperative [ CITATION Pec07 \p 209 \l 4105 ] . Indeed Kant

himself wrote virtue is the product of pure practical reason in so far as reason… [ CITATION Imm79

\p 477 \t \l 4105 ]

Peck is not alone as Leslie et al calls for an education that builds moral courage in

individuals rather than enforce regulations as a means of ensuring adherence to ethical codes.

They write:

Given that character development can extend the worth of an organization, it is

unfortunate that ethics education and training in organizational settings continue to focus
on exacting regulation and enforcing compliance controls rather than building moral
strength. It remains all too common that a prevention orientation is standard, where the
operational baseline is secured via rules and legal standards to influence decisions and
behaviour…Generally, it has been argued persuasively that any attempt to establish a
universal standard of right versus wrong would be futile given that each person has
his/her own moral philosophy (Leslie E. Sekerka, 2009, p. 565, David Kim, 2009, p.
116).
The Challenge of Responsibility

Concerning the challenge of responsibility, Bos argues:

Morality in bureaucracies thus undergoes a fundamental change in appearance. It no
longer has to do with self-respect, integrity, empathy, autonomy, conscience or individual
responsibility, but, instead self-sacrifice, obedience, docility, duty and discipline … the
question for the bureaucrat is not whether he or she can morally approve of the action,
but whether it was in conformity with the specific rules laid down by the authorities
within the organization. Being moral implies being obedient and rule-abiding.[ CITATION
Bos97 \p 998 \l 4105 ]”
 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

Collective Responsibility

At the heart of the categorical imperative is the case for individual responsibility.

Individuals are suppose to make ethical decision after a careful processing of facts that involves

thinking through and coming up with a solution based on the criteria set afore. This is where a

major objection to the applicability of Kant’s moral doctrine in business begins. Altman (2007)

writes that the fact that, for Kant, only fully autonomous reasoning is morally praiseworthy

highlights his focus on the individual person. He adds:

Kant envisions an ethical commonwealth in which a community of people collectively

pursues the ends of virtue, but the kingdom of ends expresses and symbolically represents
individuals’ attempts at self-perfection. For Kant, a just social system is a group of
particular agents whose social principles reflect what it means to be reasonable. No
collection of individuals, a social union or a kingdom of ends, has a social nature,
highest-order interests, or the ability to apply the moral law to its actions [ CITATION
Alt07 \p 260 \l 4105 ].

Even as Altman argues that the principle of collective responsibility denies Kant a place

in business ethics, Richard De George is not in agreement with him. He writes:

We can take a clue here from legal responsibility. [The corporation] can be sued, fined,
forced to make reparations, desist from certain activities, and undertake others, and so on.
If the corporation is to take affirmative action, then the corporation as a whole is
evaluated as to whether such action has been taken. All this views the corporation as an
entity from the outside. The action can be viewed from a moral point of view as well….
[I]t seems perfectly plausible to ascribe moral responsibility to corporations even if they
do not have moral feelings. This is because it is proper and useful to speak of the actions
of corporations, and since they affect society and its members, to evaluate those actions
from a moral point of view. [ CITATION Geo81 \p "61 - 62" \l 4105 ]
However, Altman (2007) is not at ease with De George and says, he seems to be

assuming a consequentialist moral position, which judge action (rather than maxims) based on

their effect on others. He further accuses De George of blurring the distinction between legality

and morality – something he believes is fundamental for Kant. This argument makes sense
 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

especially when we consider the fact that legality only limits a person’s actions, not motives –

something that Kant strongly agrees with.

Altman further argues that there is no appropriate analogy between a corporation’s legal

responsibility and moral responsibility. It is only a subject to the law because it acts, but it cannot

be judged morally because it has no intentions. This should be true, since for Kant, something

must have the requisite characteristics – the capacity to reason and the ability to act purely for

the sake of duty – in order to be the subject of praise and blame.

In summary, Kant’s categorical imperative does not focus directly on business or

organizations. It fails to go deep enough into creating a general ethics upon which organizations

in general can be held accountable. This is so because his moral doctrine can not make sense of

collective responsibility, and more so, when this doctrine depends on a strict criteria for what

counts as a moral agent.

Does this mean that Kant is absolutely lame in so far as business ethics is concerned?

One would therefore seek a different application for Kant’s categorical imperative in business

and only one option is left: the Individual responsibility within the organization, to which we

turn to.

Personal Responsibility

Altman (2007) suggests that although Kant’s ethics precludes corporate moral

responsibility, it does not imply that people can never be blamed when they act on behalf of a

company[ CITATION Alt07 \p 261 \l 4105 ] . He however, adds that this can only happen under

certain conditions:
 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

In order to be fully responsible for a given action, we must be aware of what we are
doing. We must see that a decision needs to be made, or that we are facing a moral
dilemma; we must recognize that we need to reach a conclusion; we must understand the
oppositions that are available; and we must have the information to make a well-informed
decision.
Altman insists that from a Kantian perspective, a corporation can have no responsibility

at all. While the present write might agree with him on this statement, there is reason enough to

disagree with his analogy. Altman (2007) writes, insofar as it is a tool, and a good tool performs

its designated function well, a good corporation maximizes profits for its shareholders. The

statement should be, and in fact is true but it cannot be used to take away moral responsibility

from the actors within the corporation. Take for instance the privilege of driving a vehicle. The

driver is expected to drive carefully in a manner that respects both himself and other road users.

If the driver, through careless driving causes an accident, then he is held responsible for his

action or inaction – whichever applies in the situation. In other words, a tool may not be held

responsible for whatever it does but the handler(s) of the tool cannot escape responsibility.

Thus within the corporation, the workers may be obligated to maximize profit but only

within the moral framework that is agreeable – according to Kant, by reason. If they, by any

means, ignore or undermine ethical conditions in the process of their operations then they must

be held morally responsible.

Moreover, like Altman mentions elsewhere, Kant would claim that even the person’s

pursuit of corporate profits depends on its moral permissibility. Altman claims that there is only

one duty in any given situation, not competing duties to the company and the community. Thus

in taking on their professions they do not cease to have moral obligation to others – to the larger

group of stakeholders rather than simply shareholders.

 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

Altman (2007) believes that this is the point where Kant gives guidance in business

ethicists. He writes:

Their (corporate agents) moral duties to stakeholders can fruitfully be understood in

terms of the categorical imperative: “to use someone as a mere means is to involve them
in a scheme of action to which they could not in principle consent.”[ CITATION Alt07 \p
"261 - 262" \l 4105 ]

To concretise this statement, he argues further, saying that employees in a given

corporation have an obligation to maximize profit for shareholders… but they also have a

number of other duties, including the duties of beneficence and nonmaleficence. He gives this

analogy:

As a professor, I agree to meet with my class everyday having class is necessary to

generate revenue for the university. However, if I am on my way to class and I see a child
drowning in the shallow pool, I should save her even if doing so will make me miss my
class. Even if I ought to fulfill my employment contract and save the child, the right thing
to do in this situation is to save her from drowning. Business people are in similar
positions. They should maximize profit unless there is more pressing moral duty to
family, friends, other employees, and anyone who is affected by the business [ CITATION
Alt07 \p 262 \l 4105 ].

Altman’s analogy is good but insufficient insofar as applying Kantian ethics to business

is concerned. Kantian ethics has even more implications than just opting for the morally right

action against another. It is not just confined to preference but is obligatory. Sometimes, it may

run against the corporation’s profit-making process. Some unique ethical situations like whistle

blowing require moral courage. Though they may come with far reaching consequences, the

morally right thing to do, according to Kant is to blow the whistle even if it means losing ones

job – sometimes even life.

Dilemma Facing Business Ethicists: Kant or Collective Responsibility

 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

Giving support to Kantian ethics, Leslie et al suggests that “organizations ought to

institute a behavioural shift, calling for a revolution of character and reintroduction of personal

conscience, responsibility and values[ CITATION Les09 \p 565 \l 4105 ] . Those who respond to

ethical challenges adopt a variety of values. Personal values can be complemented by

professional and organizational values, extending one’s value system [ CITATION Les09 \p 569 \l

4105 ].

Since for Kant, moral responsibility can only rest with the rational individual, the

problem is that responsibility tends to be diffused in a corporate setting. Altman (2007) writes

that if employees are only involved in isolated aspects of a larger project, they can fail to see that

there is a moral dilemma at hand. They may not understand when a decision needs to be made,

because they do not know when the corporation has come close to a crossing line, or they may

not have information about how what they are doing will be used. Consequently, some corporate

actions may occur that cannot be judged because they cannot be attributed to anyone [ CITATION

Alt07 \p 263 \l 4105 ].

Conclusion

This article concludes that Kant’s moral doctrine can be applied in business or

organization ethics. There are particular limitations to it. For instance, it does not support the

idea of codes of conduct and this is rightly argued that universal standards of rights versus

wrongs are futile given that each person has his/her own moral philosophy, religion or culture.

The article also considers the fact that Kant judges people’s actions with reference to their

motives and that businesses are not the sorts of things that choose maxims upon which to act. It

however, finds a soft landing in the personal responsibility. It seems, therefore, that the
 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

categorical imperative can be applied to the actions of the particular individual actors in the

business or corporate environments. This would mean a surrender of the collective responsibility

theory.

It is also instructive to note that further investigations should be made to find out if there

are other moral theories that can be applied alongside the categorical imperative in order to bring

on board the whole corporate entity into taking ethical responsibility. The implications of results

of such investigations should then be spread across teaching, research and practice. Teachers

would know whether to put emphasis on the Kantian Doctrine of virtue or to disregard it en toto.

Research should investigate the place of Kantian education in developing greater work ethic and

consequent productivity in organizations: both corporate and public. Finally, the implications of

the findings would be of paramount importance to the practitioner. It would be hoped that

organization leadership and staff would act with regard to the highest good for all in mind,

regardless of whether it affects the bottom line.

 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

Bibliography

Adrian, E. Fleege and E. "The Implementation of Corporate Ethics: A Comparative Study

Between Motorola and Ericsson." UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research 7 (2004):
1 - 9.

Altman, Matthew C. "THe Decomposition of the Corporate Body: What Kant Cannot Contribute
to Business Ethics." Journal of Business Ethics 74 (2007): 253-256.

Baron, Marcia. Kantian Ethics Almost Without Apology. Cornell: Cornell U.P., 1995.

Bos, Rene ten. "Essai: Business Ethics and Bauman Ethics." Organization Studies (Walter de
Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG.) 18, no. 6 (1997): 997-1014.

Bowie, Norman E. "A Kantian Theory of Leadership." Leadership and Organizational

Development Journal 21 (2000): 185-193.

Bowie, Norman E and Denis Arnold. "Sweatshops and Respect for Persons." Business Ethics
Quartely 13 (2003): 221-242.

Bowie, Norman E. Business Ethics: A Kantian Persepective. Malden: Blackwell, 1999.

Brian, Philips, Jeremy Zorn and Julie Blattberg. "Study Guide for Grounding for Metaphysics of
Morals." New York: SparkNotes, 2002. 1 - 38.

Bruhn, John G. "The Functionality of Gray Area Ethics in Organizations." Journal of Business
Ethics (Springer) 89 (2009): 205-214.

Cynthia Stohl, Michael Stohl and Lucy Popova. "A New Generation of Corporate Codes of
Ethics." Journal of Business Ethics, 2009: 607 - 622.

D. K. Bondy, Matten and J. Moon. "The Adoption of Voluntary Codes of Conduct in MNCs: A
Three-Country Comparative Study'." Business and Society review 45 (2004): 235 - 248.
 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

David Kim, Dan Fisher and David McCalman. "Modernity, Christianity, and Business Ethics: A
Worldview Perspective." Journal of Business Ethics, 2009: 115 - 121.

Doorn, Neelke. "Applying Rawlsian Approaches to Resolve Ethical Issues: Inventory and
Setting of a Research Agenda." Journal of Business Ethics, 2009: 127 - 143.

Foot, Philippa. "Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives." The Philosophical Review

81, no. 3 (1972): 305 - 316.

George, T. R. " Can corporations have moral responsibility? ." In Ethical Theory and Business,
by Beauchamp and Bowie. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1981.

Goldsby, Brian K. Buron and Michael G. "The Moral Floor: A Philosophical Examination of the
Connection Between Business and Ethics." Journal of Business Ethics 91 (2009): 145-
154.

Hardwig, John. "The Stockholder - A Lesson for Business Ethics from Bioethics?" Journal Of
Business Ethics 91 (2010): 329-341.

Hinman, Lawrence. www.plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#CatHyplmp. (accessed

February 19, 2010).

Hsing - Chau Tseng, Chi - Hsiang Duan, Hui - Lien Tung and Hsiang - Jui Kung. "Modern
Business Ethics Research: Concepts, Theories and Relationships." Journal of Business
Ethics, 2010: 587 - 597.

Kant, Immanuel. "Critique of Practical Reason." In Practical Philosophy, by Immanuel Kant,

edited by Mary J. Gregor, translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. London: Longmans,
1909.

—. Critique of Pure Reason . Translated by J.M.D. Meiklejohn. Minneola, NY: Dover

Publications.

—. The Doctrine of Virtue: Part 2 of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by M. J. Gregor.

New York: Harper and Row, 1979.

Leslie E. Sekerka, Richard P. Bagozzi and Richard Charnigo. "Facing Ethical Challenges in the
Workplace: Conceptualizing and Measuring Professional Moral Courage." Journal of
Business Ethics, 2009: 565 - 579.

Louden, Robert. Kant's Impure Ethics. New York: Oxford U. Press, 2000.
 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

Lu, Xiaohe. "Business Ethics and Karl Marx's Theory of Capital - Refelctions on Making Use of
Capital for Developing China's Socialist Market." Journal of Business Ethics 91 (2009):
95-111.

Luis Rodriguez - Dominguez, Isabel Gallego - Alvarez and Isabel Maria Garcia - Sanchez.
"Corporate Governance and Codes of Ethics." Journal of Business Ethics 90 (2009):
187-202.

Mitchell J. Neubert, Dawn S. Carlson, K. Michele Kacmar, James A. Roberts and Lawrence B.
Chonko. "The Virtuous Influence of Ethical Leadership Behaviour: Evidence from the
Field." Journal of Business Ethics 90 (2009): 157-170.

Modarelli, Michael. "A Kantian approach to the dilemma of part-time faculty." Changing
English 13, no. 2 (August 2006): 241 - 252.

Name, Author. What's 'Too Graphic'? How To Photograph Disaster. February 01, 2010.

Pan, John R. Sparks and Yue. "Ethical judgments in Business Ethics Research: Definition and
Research Agenda." Journal of Business Ethics 90 (2010): 405-418.

Peck, Lee Anne. "Sapere Aude! The Importance of Moral Education in Kant's Doctrine of
Virtue." Journal of Mass Media Ethics (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc) 22, no. 2 &
3 (2007): 208 - 214.

Posner, B. Z. "Values and the American Manager: A Three-Decade Perspective." Journal of

Business Ethics, 2010: 457 - 465.

Promislo, Robert A. Giacolone and Mark D. "Unethical and Unwell: Decrements in Well-Being
and Unethical Activity at Work." Journal of Business Ethics 91 (2010): 275-297.

Rodgers, Waymond. "Three Primary Trust Pathways Underlying Ethical Considerations."

Journal of Business Ethics, 2009: 83 - 93.

Scot John Vitell, Encarnacion Ramos, Ceri M. Nishihara. "The Role of Ethics and Social
Responsibility in Organizational Success: A Spanish Perspective." Journal of Business
Ethics 91 (2010): 467-483.

Scott John Vitell, Encarnacion Ramos, Ceri M. Nishihara. "The Role of Ethics and Social
Responsibility in Organizational Success: A Spanish Perspective." Journal of Business
Ethics 91 (2010): 467-483.

Sean Valentine, Philip Varca, Lynn Godkin and Tim Barnett. "Positive Job response and Ethical
Job PPerformance." Journal of Business Ethics, 2020: 195 - 206.
 Implications of Kant's Moral Doctrine to Organizational Ethics

Siddiqui, Javed. "Development of Corporate Governance Regulations." Journal of Business

Ethics: The Case of an Emerging Economy, 2010: 253 - 274.

Taylor, W. P. Principles of Ethics: An Introduction to Ethics. Encino, CA: Dickenson, 1975.