Fien Logghe
Business and Consumer Ethics
Karl Verstrynge – 2021-2022
Part I – What is (applied) ethics?
0. What is (applied) ethics?
0.1 Three key terms in ethics
Ethics is what makes human beings different from other beings, e.g. animals:
1. Normativity
o How we should act/be <> how we act/are. What is expected and from who + who has
the measures for these expectations?
o This means our freedom is limited by ethics. It is the “prescription” about a good life.
There are certain obligations, we can’t just do sth whatever/whenever/however.
o Animals: act on instincts, eat each other and hunt (<> humans cannot murder another
being)
2. Humanity
o Being human means raising questions and discussing about what we think is right or
wrong. We reflect upon ourselves and our choices.
o Animals: don’t discuss their behaviour + don’t have the capacity to reasoning.
3. Individuality
o When speaking about humans, we speak about individuals. We all have other
reflections, there are no 2 exact same persons.
o Animals: are part of a bigger species or race (<> humans aren’t)
o HEIDEGGER introduces 2 terms when discussing human individuality:
Geworfenheit
= thrownness, geworpenheid
We’re being thrown in a world: we didn’t ask to be here, we received life. We did so
by our parents, but they didn’t choose you for the person you are and will be.
Jemeinigkeit
= mine-ness, each-their-own-ness
Nobody can replace you, nobody can live your life and take over some things (e.g.
suffering, laughing, dying…). Everyone has other feelings, interprets in different ways
etc.
CONCLUSION: When we raise the question “what is ethics?”, we need to consider what it is to be a
human being.
1
,Fien Logghe
0.2 The threefold characteristic of the ethical demand
Do we have obligations in life? Things we are forced to do? The 3 characteristics refer to each other +
make clear what we mean about ethical demand.
1. The SINGULAR character of the ethical demand
Individuality – silent character – separation
If we agree that we are thrown in life, then we agree that what we do in life is not indifferent.
We can decide to end it at any point and never be replaced. So when reflecting about ‘what
should human beings do’, you also reflect about ‘what should I do, what is expected from ME’.
It has a silent character as well, bcs we can’t share the obligation with anybody else since we
live our lives as individuals. You can’t universalize ethical demand, since it always refers to your
own individuality. But: don’t fall back into relativism, bcs it’ll make ethical demand irrelevant.
e.g. climate change: those who don’t use planes, cars, laptops… have different obligations than
those who do.
2. The ABSOLUTE character of the ethical demand
Life befalls & eludes us, therefore the ethical demand is put on our shoulders by existence
itself. ‘absolute’ means that it’s always bigger than yourself + that it’s always there.
3. The INFINITE character of the ethical demand
The ethical demand is never fulfilled: you can’t do all your demands at 1 day, can’t do 1 and
then none, can’t put it on hold, can’t know what is going to happen next, can’t be reduced to
1 goal for your whole life
Life is lived forward but understood backwards – KIERKEGAARD → you don’t know what is
going on in life until you reach the end. Life -and therefore your goals- can change.
Ethics has a disruptive nature: a person can never be sure that (s)he acted in the right manner. Our
uncertainty is our guilt – LøGSTRUP. You don’t know if you did actually good, even when you strive for
it. There’s existential guilt: not bcs we do wrong, but bcs we never know if we did right. There’s
uncertainty: we can’t master life, you never know if demand is fulfilled so we’ve never done enough.
0.3 Morals, morality, ethics and the twofold meaning of ‘ethos’
Morals, morality and ethics have the same roots. They’re used as synonyms + are similar, but aren’t.
➔ Morals and éthos
o Morals = totality of rules and values of withing a group. Supra-personal, communal
(e.g. sociology, cultural anthropology).
They circulate im-/explicit: they’re there and we don’t question it. E.g. kissing on the
cheek, taking your shoes of before entering a house → different around the world.
o Éthos
Literally = place of shelter where animals come together to search/find support,
shelter, residence. They develop a custom habit where it becomes clear how members
of the group should act/behave. Humans do this as well.
In the case of ethics: place where beings are gathering around and where there’s an
opportunity to develop communal values. Organization of a group/togetherness.
2
,Fien Logghe
Therefore: one ethos differs from another, e.g. ethos in Athens custom values like
justice, gentleness, prudence <> Sparta custom values like strength, conditions
➔ Morality and èthos
o Morality = individual, deliberate action (conscience)
When we are socialized with reality -and thus where morals are circulating and known
by the community-, we consciously reflect on those morals and how we deal with
them. E.g. eating meat: everyone has their own reason to (not) do so.
o Èthos = (personal) conviction upon which acts, individual elements of actions and
reflexivity. Individual reflection upon what you’re doing, and thus about éthos.
➔ Overall example éthos and èthos:
o VUB community éthos: acts upon customs that everyone shares, everyone is critical
o VUB community èthos: individual student thinks about custom: they’ve got critical
thoughts
➔ Ethics
o = systematic/critical/broader reflection on morals and morality. Resembles moral
voices and gives systematic account of that. Can be pronounced 2 ways: éthos and
èthos. Ethics occurs when normative ideas become problematic (e.g. abortion, eating
meat). This means that it somehow always comes too late, bcs sth is already
problematic/dilemma.
o Goal of ethical reflection is to come to a consensus of an universal account of what is
right/wrong, but you can never be sure (= disruptive nature of ethics!).
o “critical” means that all issues can be discussed. This is the crucial distinction with
(Abrahamitic) religion (= based on the founding fathers as claimed in the Bible, e.g.
islam, jewish, Christian). Religion refers to divine commands who are clear + can’t be
denied + based on dogma: it can’t be put under discussion.
0.4 The two forms of ethics
1. Non-normative ethics
= on the level of morals. What people are talking about when values are at stake in an éthos,
e.g. in a group, withing an ideology etc
a. Descriptive ethics
= describing upon what morals and values there are in a group/community + the
functions of ethics. Reflects upon them without evaluating/judging them. It is found
in empirical human sciences with a descriptive approach of human behaviour like
sociology, psychology etc.
b. Meta-ethics
= reflection on ethics itself + what ethics is about
1. To understand the phenomenon of morality + moral concepts + ethics as such:
why are there values and what are they about? It is about finding a way out of the
flybottle (when a fly goes in a bottle but doesn’t find a way out), meaning we
should show confused people the way
3
,Fien Logghe
2. To clarify misuse of a concepts and confusion. “everything can be reduced to
language” – WITTGENSTEIN → words only have meaning when they’re used and
have no essence or abstract meaning in itself. It is always reflected in the way it’s
used. This means that you’re in a different language game when you’re in another
culture or situation. e.g. shouting water could have several meanings like thirsty,
danger, genius idea…. This means that “good” doesn’t have an absolute character,
but functions in language games: it is good to close the door ≠ it is good not to kill.
2. Normative (prescriptive) ethics
= discussing with reasonable arguments about the transition from “is” to “ought”. E.g. you’re
ought not to lie: are there arguments to do so? Deals with reflections + justification for the
claims we make
a. Fundamental ethics
= formulating fundaments to our actions, why are some principles situated above
others? There are 3 normative arguments/claims that give justification for the
transition between “is” and “ought”:
1. consequentialism → the principles of our actions are attached to the
consequences of them: if you do this then that
2. deontological ethics → the world of ought exists on its own: there are universal
duties (“deon”) to be followed by all people, e.g. don’t kill
3. virtue ethics → not universal duties, but virtues (culture, group) determine what
is desirable: it depends on the custom/group/culture, e.g. example Sparta-Athens
b. Applied ethics
= applying fundamental ethics in a specific domain
e.g. bio-ethics, medical ethics, animal ethics, media ethics, business ethics…
0.5 General remarks
➔ Negatively perceiving ethics: ethics…
o … has no supermodel: it is always in the making
o … isn’t a form of praxis: goal isn’t to persuade people, but to give them tools for
reasonable discussion. Ethics relies on will of people to try to understand arguments.
o … isn’t moral education: it is not about teaching the good, but providing a method to
reflect on the good
o … can’t and may not bypass personal and contextual specificity: it is about a) your
individual life where you have personal responsibility and autonomy + b) your specific
situation where context should be taken into account and be careful (prudent >
prudential) about it
➔ Positively perceiving ethics: ethics…
o … has a normative character: attempts to make a transfer between ‘is’ and ‘ought’ by
reasoning how things are and how they should be.
o … relates to existing fields of morals in society
o … presupposes individual responsibility and autonomy of the will: no one can do it
for you + no one can force you to do
4
,Fien Logghe
➔ Relation with law
o Similarities between ethics and law (but no reduction!): touch upon the same subject,
which is reflecting on human norms and vales + capturing codes of conducts between
human beings.
o Differences between ethics and law
▪ Law = compulsory and enforceable, once it’s voted it goes for everyone
without exception <> ethics = no obligation, it’s a personal decision if you
follow the demand
▪ Law = has institutions & powers that enforce it <> ethics = the worse you can
do is blame someone but if you can live with that blame then there’s no
problem, even if the ethical demand is always on your shoulders
▪ Law = created with us + manmade so some don’t reflect what being human is
about <> ethics = older than us. E.g. being LGTBTQ has been prohibited for
decades, which is highly problematic from moral perspective.
o Differences between legitimacy ( ̴ law) and justice ( ̴ ethics)
▪ Legitimacy = about correspondence between human action and specific rule
of law (e.g. traffic rules) <> justice = has been there for ages
▪ Legitimacy = you know what is right/wrong + is the same for all people <>
justice = unsure if sth is right/wrong bcs is about some kind of correspondence
and therefore ethical demand + not the same for all people
e.g. abortion, LGBTQ: some think it its unacceptable, others don’t
▪ In case of conflict between justice and legitimacy: law is always decisive, but
doesn’t mean that ethics can’t criticise law and urge to change it. Sometimes
it is even necessary to break the law. Ethical reflection can think faster about
societal changes (<> lawmaking takes ages). The judge has to impose the law
+ is always able to go with ethical reflection (“jurisprudence”): they take into
account opinions and social pressure, even if it is the law.
E.g. two cars drive 160 km/h where they have to drive 120 km/h: don’t get the same
punishment bcs the first has guilt insight & acknowledges punishment <> second is
careless and is disinterested in court
e.g. youth climate protests: forbidden to skip school, but they did it anyway
5
,Fien Logghe
Part 2 – Textbook
1. Introduction
1.1 Against business ethics
“Nowadays, life itself is so deformed and distorted that no one is able to live the good life 1 in it or to fulfil his
destiny as a human being…. I believe that only by making this situation a matter of consciousness – rather than
covering it up with sticking plaster2 – it will be possible to create the conditions in which we can properly formulate
questions about how we should lead our lives today. The only thing that can perhaps be said is that the good life
today would consist in resistance to the forms of the bad life3 that have been seen through and critically dissected
by the most progressive minds.” – ADORNO4 (1963)
1. It’s impossible to live a perfect life bcs human beings are living in ruinance, life is distorted.
2. The fundament is being critical about the future and therefore properly formulating questions.
It’s not about formulating answers bcs they are unnecessary.
3. Even if we live in ruinance, we can resist the bad life and thrive for a good life.
4. Adorno: member of the neomarxist Frankfurter Schule that’s critical about modernity and
western society.
“If you kill a man like me [Socrates1], you will injure yourself more than you will injure me, since my role is that of
a gadfly2, to sting people and whip them into a fury, all in the service of the truth.” – PLATO (30e)
1. First man to talk about ethics, but refused to put it in theory and write books about it. We
know his thoughts via Plato. He introduced docta ignorantia (= de leer van de onwetenheid):
the only thing we know is that we don’t know. This means that ethics is never sure about
what’s good/bad so we human beings don’t as well, which is our human guilt.
2. Gadlfy = insect that stings and keeps on biting (“daas”). Is about confrontation and discomfort
about what is going on
1.2 Six problems with business ethics
BE (= business ethics) is in miserable state due to these foreclosures = vooringenomenheid. There are
6 problems in ethics as it is usually taught.
1. Foreclosing philosophy
➔ 21st century ethical traditions that have their origin in: ancient Greeks, late 19th century
German and 18th-19th century English. Current business ethicists totally exclude (second
part of) the 20th century philosophy.
➔ This is problematic: in that time period ethics was profoundly debated and it’s the major
source of philosophical reflection. Think about insights from Adorno & Levinas, who turned
ethical reflections upside down and have great influence in current BE
6
,Fien Logghe
2. Foreclosing society
➔ BE deals too much with individualism: explanations of social action focus on individuals
and ignore role of social context. But you can’t explain individual traits without referring
to the structures tha shape them (gender, ethnicity, class, age…).
➔ Individual action always takes place in a social context and within social structures. E.g. a
bunch of individuals would be responsible for war, but they wouldn’t be there if our society
wouldn’t have raised them. Remark: this does NOT mean that those people don’t have
responsibility for their actions.
3. Foreclosing ‘the ethical’
➔ BE has a narrow definition of what counts as ‘ethical’. Ethicists discuss rights/wrong of
issues that are generally perceived as an ‘ethical issue’ such as child labour, pollution etc.
➔ Tend to forget to reflect about other basic issues, e.g. employment contracts (9-5 really as
effective?), im- and export (why do we export shrimps to peel them and import them again
for sale?) or profits for shareholders (what about employees that produced surplus?)
4. Foreclosing ‘the meaning of ethics’
➔ BE’s ‘definition’ means a lot of different things and ethics has no transparent meaning.
➔ It’s NOT about talking about the same thing in different ways. It is about talking about
differing things in different ways
➔ We can imagine ethics itself through different philosophies, e.g. utilitarianism, deontology,
virtue ethics. We can’t agree on what ethics is about, but we can agree about what it isn’t.
5. Foreclosing politics
➔ BE denies the role of politics. Relates to no. 3, but goes further: what is BE willing to
question/challenge?
➔ BE treats business scandals as symptoms of broader problems in contemporary business
practices. This means that some general assumptions about the world we live in should be
put aside: the one we live in today might not be the best of all.
➔ “Englightened false consciousness” – SLOTERDIJK, 1988: we know what’s wrong with the
world, but refuse to do sth about it. Relates to cynicism. We are aware of the problems +
that there are alternative ways, yet we choose to not act against it. E.g. climate change
➔ BE itself is an instance of cynicism. BE accept the world and the way of doing politics
nowadays as the reality and therefore refuse to consider political alternatives. That way,
BE justify the (political) status quo.
➔ Conclusion: BE has to reconsider place of politics in BE by reflecting on bureaucracy,
modernity, globalisation and capitalism. In this POV, it can learn a lot from e.g. sociology
6. Foreclosing the goal of ethics
➔ BE isn’t an instrument to achieve a clear goal: it doesn’t give a clear view how to make
decisions in particular decisions + doesn’t solve (ethical) problems
➔ As mentioned before: E has a disruptive nature + involves dislocation from common sense
+ creates uneasiness/uncertainty + is a matter of consciousness. BE forgets these
characteristics. BE wants to provide solutions to problems and serve a set of ideas of what
is “right”. Therefore it doesn’t challenge itself to think differently.
7
, Fien Logghe
2. Common sense business ethics
➔ Definition
Common sense in general = perception we have of ourselves, times, society, world as we live
in. Mostly uncriticized by a lot of people.
Common sense in BE = how business ethicists think/write/practice BE. They think critical and
ask philosophical questions, bcs some ‘common sense’ isn’t common at all.
2.1 What is business?
➔ Definition
o Business in older sense = trade/activity, what makes people busy, particular task
o Business nowadays = jobs and organisations in private sector, profitmaking,
responding to market situation
➔ Division of the world of work
o Business world = brutal/realistic sector, high rewards, hard work, job insecurity
o Non-business world = non-profit organisations e.g. schools, hospitals, friends, family…
would be kind/slow, sheltered of market realities. REMARK: some social services are
perceived as profitmaking as well nowadays!
o Result: ethics applied to non-business world wouldn’t be useful bcs it’s kind/slow and
non-market situations. BE covers them as well. Moral comportment + judgement
comes in different situations.
➔ Business as a vulgar matter and ordinary
o Religion: taking interest (usury) prohibited by Islam + moneylenders kicked out of the
temple by Jesus + harming another (which you will in doing business) will cause karma
according to Buddhists
o Representation in media: negative (guy in suit, mafia associations) <> positive
(management textbooks, charisma)
➔ Business and management as a sort of science
o Done bad in the past, now better bcs we understand more about people + about
markets.
o Key sciences: psychology (what goes on in heads of individuals) + economics ( what
happens when we collect choices made in lots of heads)
o Business as applied science on sciendifict understanding of people + markets. There’s
a win-win situation if harmony is found between people’s internal desires + collective
preferences, e.g. marketeer does sth they love, generates jobs, becomes rich
o No exact sciences, so claims about doing business should be questioned: do we
actually want challenging jobs? Is leadership important? They are perceived as general
truth, but there is no hard data on that. It always involves ideas as how things should
be + contain normative agenda
8
