The case against ethics in business seems to be a rationalization of moral relativity. Moral relativity is the erroneous belief that wrong and right change depending on your perspective. “What is wrong for me may not be wrong for you, and vice versa,” in other words. One of the clarion calls of immoral executives has always been that their “responsibility is to create value for their shareholders.” This rationale can apparently be used to justify absolutely anything, from stunningly destructive externalities to specific, directed harm.
Can we be convinced that success is measured in a single dimension? If I personally were offered a choice between being wealthy or not, make no mistake: I certainly wouldn’t choose poverty. This fact has been repeatedly offered to me as the final word on lying and cheating, on underhanded tactics for selling, buying, negotiating, etc. Somehow, my desire to make good money and be able to live comfortably is used as a catch-22. As if you can’t have one without the other.
The next justification is usually a proposal of mass participation. We as a species struggle to move past the feeling that if a lot of us are doing a thing, that thing must somehow be morally legitimate. If one person regularly beats their family members bloody, that individual is agreed to be a criminal and deserving of collective justice. However, if you just increase participation in the practice to a significant proportion of the population, well, it then becomes culture, and we have a taboo on criticism of culture. This is patently insane.
Despite all our social progress, our ability to reflect with shame on past actions and attitudes, and our pride at moving past various prejudices, we can still look at our current harms and refuse to judge them. Social cohesion is an instinctive, sublimely compelling check on our development.
Lastly, we usually hear something about how the customer is a sort of wily coyote [sic]. They are schemers out for bankruptcy. Customers want the best deal possible and will use every trick they can to pull one over on the salesperson. This is the antagonistic scenario. It suggests that business is a virtual Cold War: both sides presenting a facade of politeness and cooperation, when the reality is a constant, vicious struggle for supremacy. This concept is very helpful when justifying unethical behavior because we can then say something along the lines of, “I’m in danger here. They’ll destroy me and my livelihood if they can. They are the enemy, and therefore any means are justified.”
To recap, here are the three false concerns most commonly used to justify unethical behavior:
- “My only responsibility is to create value (make money). In business, all other considerations are irrelevant.”
- “Everybody’s doing it.” This is an incredibly persistent fallacy. It just isn’t true. Historically, there has never been a more harmful excuse.
- “The customer is a deceptive rascal who’s out to get me. I have no choice but to respond in kind.”
The research shows that these are all untrue. Not only is it possible to conduct ourselves ethically, but the payoff is a loyal, emotionally-invested customer base with a shared interest in our success. Ethical standards & practices create long-term value. They create relationships of trust, including employees who don’t burn out and who work hard because they believe in the company. Ethical standards are attractive, in the basic sense of the word. If there are five auto mechanics in a given area, but one of them is known for an uncompromising commitment to honesty and value, who wouldn’t go out of their way, drive an extra distance, even pay a premium, for that assurance?
I know I would.
