|
Morality Defined |
|
|
|
Given
the fact that everyone has an "opinion" on ethics and morality
and given the fact that most speakers have done little or no research on
the subject it is not surprising that there is a fair amount of
disagreement about what ethics and morals precisely mean. Are they
discrete terms or are they synonymous? Some use the terms to mean the same
thing while others link morality with spiritualism and religion while they
link ethics to social conduct. We shall clarify our position so that the
readers are left in little doubt at least about the position adopted in
this argument. Simply put, ethics is a body of principles or standards of
human conduct that govern the behaviour of individuals, groups and
organizations. It has attracted the attention of scholars down the ages.
Let me take a random sample of some of these scholarly positions.
Beginning with Greek thought, we find some discrepancy
between what is generally believed and what our studies reveal. Two terms
commonly cited when we speak of post-Socratic thought be it that of Plato
or Aristotle, are eudaimonia and arête. Commonly these are
understood to mean 'happiness' and 'virtue' respectively. While happiness
has a subjective connotation as a feeling of contentment or pleasure, the
Greeks ascribed to it an understanding of the 'source' of such feelings.
Hence they actually gave it an objective connotation. Socrates spoke of
virtue as coming from a moral position and Plato accept that position
whereas Aristotle ascribes to it an intellect-based understanding.
Socrates for instance, argued that the determination of good or bad
behaviour depended entirely on the integrity of the rational process.
Plato argued that to know what is good was to do what is good, and that
doing good was more useful and rational than doing bad. Moreover, those
who behaved immorally did so largely out of ignorance. Aristotle posited
that ethics was a purely logical outcome of human nature and it was useful
because it was logical.
Immanuel Kant in Critique of Practical Reason
postulated that a system-wide consistency was a logical requirement of
ethics and that ethics begins with the non-universality of principles. Any
adopted principle, he stated, was a categorical imperative that must be a
desirable and universal law. This moral principle against which we can
measure all actions is called the categorical imperative. To
him actions are morally defensible to the extent that they respect the
freedom, dignity, and autonomy of people. John
Rawls in his Theory of Justice, argues that a dynamic interaction
between moral commonsense and attempts to critical thinking results in a
state of reasoning called reflective equilibrium. This is a mental
and emotional standpoint from which all persons are seen to possess a
special dignity and worth. That is precisely why we take the position that
morality has little or nothing to do with spirituality per se. But
it has everything to do with human goodness. If we can only take care of
and begin to respect mankind, the Almighty will no doubt take care of
Himself.
Two diverse views emerge from Rawl's work and directly
impact business behaviour in respect of competition. First is that
unhealthy competition is counter productive while the other says that
healthy competition can lead to cooperation and growth.
Vilfredo Pareto took the mathematical-economic position
in stating a case for optimality that in a given society stating that if
every factor operated at maximum efficiency, nobody could be better off
unless someone else was worse off. Pareto efficiency was thus a
transitional state where at least one party was better off, most were well
off and none were worse off. What else could ethics mean to the homo
logicus philosophicus? How a business manager, a medical practitioner,
a lawyer or a professor approaches ethics may, in sum be based on which
philosophical line of argument he/she ascribes to. And that is something
each of us has to find out for himself/herself.
Modern day academic approaches to the study of ethics
and morals differ on both sides of the Atlantic and that is primarily
because the root word adopted by scholars differs. The root Greek word for
ethics is ethos in Europe but ethicos in America the root
Latin word for morality is mores in Europe but moralis in
America.
Since ethos and mores both signify
"from a culture", the Europeans look upon ethics as a branch of
moral philosophy and view morality as a variation of the theory of ethics.
Hence the distinction between ethics and morals is blurred in Europe.
However, ethicos signifies right or correctness in behaviour,
whereas moralis signifies goodness and high mindedness. Hence, in
America, ethics deals with issues that are right as opposed to those that
are wrong. Morality is concerned with what is good as opposed to what is
bad. The distinction is thus made clear in the academic context between
the concepts of ethics and morals.
A review of literature will show that whereas
professionals like doctors, lawyers and media personnel adopt the American
variant the management theorists and behavioural scientists remain quite
comfortable with the European position. Ethics though variously defined,
was seen as being an activity based concept. In contradistinction thereof
values are a thought based concept. Ethics, our argument pointed out, was
seen as being a branch of philosophy having morality at its core, as its
subject as well as its object. It is intrinsically normative in that it
poses the question what should we do? And by we the concept
alludes to the rational man. The use of should points squarely to
its normative nature whereas the use of do indicates the character
of the doer. In other words it is only through doing or action that the
character of the doer is revealed. Hence ethics deals with the norms of
conduct concerning individuals, groups or organizations within a
social-cultural environment.
Morals on the other hand presuppose the existence of a social
rule, within a given cultural context. Certain types of behaviour are
acceptable and some are unacceptable. Morals imply that persons within a
social context cannot do just what they please. One person's right to
liberty is constrained by the fact that in pursuing his/her right the
person should not infringe upon the right of another to pursue the other's
liberty. In a manner of speaking, morals refer to a set of rules of
conduct voluntarily accepted by members of a civil society and which
cannot be enforced by a specific body nor can they be a designated
official enforcement. Enforcement is done through custom and tradition
that binds a society together expecting members to conform to certain
accepted and known codes of behaviour. In that sense it is social
enforcement rather than specific enforcement of a code of behaviour.
Enforcement is thus usually done through peer or group pressure on the
individual to conform. The individual or the group wishes to remain within
the social or cultural milieu and voluntary conforms to the generally
accepted code of behaviour.
Moral law is implied by norms of conduct and are not
enforceable by a Court of Law. Perhaps the best example of the distinction
between moral law and positive law comes from the death sentence meted out
to a person found guilty of murder. The death sentence is pronounced not,
because the moral law forbids murder. It is pronounced as a defence
mechanism of the State that acts as a deterrent so as to protect the well
being of its citizens. Given the mutable nature of social reality and
changing values, it is quite understandable that morals change along with
social values and they cannot be seen as a constant phenomenon over a
period of time. How then can I distinguish between morals and ethics? If
they are the same thing then why use two words for it?
One thing however is certain. Both ethics and morals
are activity based concepts. An extremely useful distinction, drawn
by our distinguished senior colleague and a renowned dermatologist,
educationist and medical sciences scholar, M A Tutakne, is as follows.
Morality refers to the acceptable behaviour of a person vis-à-vis the
person's inner self, personal value system, beliefs, conscience or ego
state. In short if one can look myself in the eye while having a shave and
not bat an eyelid when one is thinking about an activity then the issue is
a moral one. Ethics refers to acceptable behaviour of a person vis-à-vis
the social environment in which the person operates, lives or works. Hence
whereas morals are an internalized activity based experience
ethics are an externalized activity based experience.
The professional must be on guard against falling into
a trap laid by either subjectivism or relativism. It is quite
erroneous for people to consider that whereas morality is one thing,
getting through life is quite another. Such a fallacy is often and
unknowingly committed by professionals, students and managers. In the name
of being smart or acting in a pragmatic manner, persons often give morals
the short shrift. This is not at all acceptable since in the long run only
those persons are respected by history who have not cut corners or taken
the easy way out, but have stuck to their values. The ends-means
debate raises his head yet again, as the reader will appreciate.
Life indeed would be boring if everyone towed the same
line, if there was no disagreement and all you heard was cries of yes sir,
yes sir, three bags full sir. Disagreement is healthy and criticism is
welcome provided it degenerates into personal mud slinging or counter
productive behaviour. Where does one draw the line?
It is quite acceptable to pursue pluralism within a
civil society and even informed intolerance is an acceptable premise provided
there is responsible moral assessment alongside thereof. But when a moral
issue is at stake and there are serious dissenting opinions then the most
recommended thing to do is to seek an equilibrium saddle point or a
position of minimal conflict. This is done by emphasising the moral ground
shared by all parties concerned and consciously working towards extending
the moral boundaries with common consent. Clarity of thought along with
transparency of action plays a key role in building an environment of
trust, as any HR specialist will know.
How does one resolve a moral impasse when the
contending views are strong? Here, the well known 5 D Methodology of OD
intervention comes in handy. The first step for the dissenting parties
is to clearly define their positions and understand those held by
the others. The second step involves diagnosis i.e. making a SWOT
analysis of the alternatives available from an ends-means viewpoint. This
will also involve looking closely at effect of a particular position taken
on the larger civil society or on the liberty of another individual. The
third step is to design the strategy which will increase the common
moral ground and reduce the area of moral disagreement. Here a specific
moral principle is often evoked to support the planned strategy. The
fourth step is to develop the strategy with the support of moral
principles i.e. justify it and make it more acceptable. At this point a
little amount of public relations or brand building activity is
inevitable. At this point the strongest possible assault or objection on
the position taken must be ascertained and countered with the strongest
possible moral defence of one's position. The fifth step is to deliver the
strategy or to actualize what has been agreed upon such that the region of
discord is minimized. Since the groundwork has already been laid, the
contending parties are better positioned to arrive at the equilibrium
saddle point or at least approximate the region of feasible solution.
We all know that at any given point of time all the
facts will never be fully known and there is bound to be an element of
uncertainty under which decisions have to be taken. If we were to wait for
all facts to be known we shall walk into the trap of analysis paralysis.
This element of uncertainty can be reduced considerably by using a
scientific method, when the positions are clarified and the decisions are
transparent. Documentation or the sixth D holds the key to
this clarity. The point to be noted is that it is not enough to be moral
or act morally but also be seen to have acted so.
There are four levels at which we can approach ethics.
The first is Business Ethics which is a macro concept relating to
how the hospital behaves on ethical issues. Within this are subsumed Organizational
Ethics and Professional Ethics. Organizational Ethics relates
to how the organization approaches the questions of ethics and governance.
Corporate/Organizational Culture and an accepted code of conduct
become germane to it understanding. Professional Ethics is concerned with
how an individual specialist behaves on ethical issues in his professional
capacity and here we come across professional codes of conduct like those
relating to a specialist profession such as a doctor, a lawyer or a
teacher. Managerial Ethics is a micro concept that is subsumed
under Personal Ethics and Work Related Ethics. The former is
an individual concept relating to how the manager behaves on ethical
issues in his personal capacity whereas the latter relates to how the
manager behaves with his peers and colleagues within a work environment.
As was mentioned earlier reality cannot be seen in clear black and white
terms since there is a vast grey area with varying shades in between.
There are bound to be overlaps and the line dividing organizational ethics
and professional ethics on the one hand and between personal ethics and
work related ethics on the other can indeed be very thin.
But what do ethics imply? As Vidya Yeravdekar, a well
known medico-legal specialist so proficiently and prolifically argues: it
brings about equilibrium between the spirit, the mind and the body so that
the totality of the human self approaches perfection. Indeed it makes the
world go round! The unicentric capitalist world economy is there to stay.
Free market capitalism ahs unleashed the demons of competition which far
from creating a sane society have tempted persons to cut corners and
intelligence has been used to justify the oft morally unjustifiable. How
is the mind-body-spirit equilibrium under such conditions to be brought
about? To answer this one must delve deep into the mind-body dualism and
relate business ethics to good governance practices.
Thus the question of moral as opposed to immoral
behaviour is brought out. Whereas morality deals with what is good or bad,
ethics deals with what is right or wrong. To the discerning reader, the
Beliefs-Values-Morals-Ethics chain can be logically comprehended.
Going through the literature on morals the student will
quite likely come across three terms that need to be cited and clearly
defined here and now so that confusion is minimized.
(i) Moral Absolutism: These are eternal moral
values and principles which attempt to adopt principles to govern society
and help people to live together in harmony. There are four known
variations of this view viz. (a) While morality is absolute at the top its
applications at lower levels may vary. (b) Morality is absolute and
constant under all conditions. (c) In suitable cases exceptions are
permitted in the interest of a greater good. (d) Morality is not eternal
and changes as society does.
(ii) Moral Relativism: There can be no such
thing as objective morality and everything is subjective. In some way we
could argue that it is derived from the notion of cultural relativism. In
this argument we have adopted such a position in respect of ethics when we
spoke of it being context specific, culture specific and person specific.
(iii) Moral Pluralism: There are four known
kinds of conditions under which this can exist in a civil society. (a)
When radical views are mutually irreconcilable. This is the basis of
social conflict and not suitable to modern multi-culture environments. (b)
When principles may vary but the practices are generally agreed upon. (c)
When principles are agreed upon but the practices may vary. (d) The
concept of morality is not eternal and changes as society develops
and attitudes as well as values change.
In contradistinction to the above, the Marxists are
generally quite categorical in their position irrespective the perspective
from which they have commented (see Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci
and Michels). Just as law is seen as codified class relationships, so too,
morality is viewed essentially from a class-ideological perspective.
Engels spoke of morality in terms of bourgeois prejudices behind which
lurk bourgeois interests in the Condition of the Working Class in
England. Marx postulated his theory of false consciousness in Grundrisse
and used it to attack specific moral positions rather than morality per
se. Lenin in Materialism and Empiro Criticism saw morality as
being depicted as the viewpoint of impartial and detached well wishers.
This concept of impartial benevolence was later taken up by Lukas in History
and Class Consciousness when he said that as long as class conflict
emanating out of class oppression exists this condition could not
be attained.
Before we conclude this brief discussion defining
morality, two observations need to be made especially because they go a
long way towards improving upon the empirical position taken by us in Theory
and Practice of Managerial Ethics (1999). In that work we had pointed
out that it had been perceived by respondents that: We had ascribed the two tendencies to spring from an added financial
burden that men have to bear as they grow older. But M A Tutakne,
disagrees with our view and argues that the basic moral upbringing at home
has a lot to do with work place behaviour. Whatever values that are learnt
on the lap of a parent or in a school are seldom forgotten and even in
later life are retained in the subconscious mind. In the beginning this
influence is strong but with the passage of time and experience this
influence looses its influence on individual behaviour. This is why the
youth has always been altruistic and idealistic compared to the older
generation. Hence he argues: The reader is free to come to his/her conclusion but we tend to place
considerable weight on the general Madhav Tutakne's prognosis, if only
because Indian society is still quite family oriented, the joint family
system may be down but is far from out, and his argument carries the full
weight of sociological-anthropological logic.
A discussion on morals invariably leads us to the
treatment of corruption, its antithesis. The views expressed here have
emerged out a discussion with Brig. N B Grant, in Pune on 28.5.2003 and
due acknowledgement is hereby accorded. The dictionary meaning of the term
"corruption" is policies and practices that are a deviation
from the norm. As has been argued by us elsewhere (1999) the
development of Indian society (polity, economy and academia) can be
clearly visualized with ease but they appear in parts to have been
marginalized by the rise of mediocrity. Logically then we could argue
that, in parts, norms have levelled off at low ebb. Could we then pass off
corruption as accepted practice as the praxis paradigm would suggest? This
is what seemed to have happened to parts of both the Indian business and
Indian bureaucracy with the rise of mediocrity. We can then confidently
say that the praxis paradigm comes closest to representing objective
social reality. |
