Is a Moral Organization Possible?

Abstract

Textbooks in ethics often discuss, or at least mention, the popular notion that is amoral or, at worst, immoral. People who have not thought much about values often hold contradictory views, as Socrates so effectively showed. Thus, DeGeorge argues that if it is an accepted fact that is amoral, why are people shocked and upset about scandals; clearly, there are many people who, if they were consistent, would have to say that people at least should behave morally. Environmental and consumer groups believe this to be true, and a number of high ranking people would like to improve the morality, and not just the image, of business.1 Since is a part of society, it should be, and is, subjected to society's rules. But many people, DeGeorge argues, mistakenly believe that they have fulfilled their obligations, if their actions are lawful. The law prohibits theft, enforces contracts, sets limits to advertising, and reinforces many moral norms.2 He is clearly correct when he argues that although it is convenient and easy for people to equate legal and moral obligations, they are not the same.3 Moreover, as Bowie and others have mentioned, practice is possible only if business adheres to a minimum standard of justice and gives recognition to the rights of those engaged in the practice of business.4 Applying Kant's Categorical Imperative, (universalizing one's maxims) Bowie shows that such immoral actions as cheating, lying and breaking agreements or promises are institu tionally self-defeating.5 Similarly, theft, fraud, kickbacks, bribery, as acts of deception, undermine practices. To attempt to make oneself an exception to rules is to act unfairly or unjustly.