I was only taking orders
“We have to keep our employees in work.”
Today’s business dilemma is about German companies and their behaviour during WWII. While no company should be condemned if a government calls on its services in times of war, the way it goes about its business shouldn’t be less ethical than it would be in peacetime. If the government wants to sully its hands, that’s the government’s business. But I.G. Farben sullied its hands as part of the war effort and its directors were tried at Nüremberg after the war.
The discussion at the back of the book is also about the ethics of business in general, which is not a subject I’d consider in this case. Basically, business is about making money – minimal outlay for maximum profits – and ethics be damned. The German companies in question had already been engaged in some commercially questionable practices, although such decisions would have appeared to be pragmatic. It reminds me that when Sunday trading came in, M&S refused to join the party, but I’m not sure they still do that these days. Once one company starts doing something that’s commercially beneficial in some way, others are likely to follow suit or suffer the consequences.
It brings an interesting perspective to yesterday’s final dilemma. Sandra might place duty to the company first (although Kant would probably condemn her for her reasons because they’re self-centred), but the company would still sack her without a qualm if there was an economic recession. The company expects loyalty from her, but may not be able to show such loyalty in return. We’re almost getting back to the very first dilemma in the book with the question of the few vs. the many. Some lose their jobs/lives so that others may have them because the alternative is for all to lose their jobs/lives. It’s an unpleasant reality.
The discussion at the back of the book is also about the ethics of business in general, which is not a subject I’d consider in this case. Basically, business is about making money – minimal outlay for maximum profits – and ethics be damned. The German companies in question had already been engaged in some commercially questionable practices, although such decisions would have appeared to be pragmatic. It reminds me that when Sunday trading came in, M&S refused to join the party, but I’m not sure they still do that these days. Once one company starts doing something that’s commercially beneficial in some way, others are likely to follow suit or suffer the consequences.
It brings an interesting perspective to yesterday’s final dilemma. Sandra might place duty to the company first (although Kant would probably condemn her for her reasons because they’re self-centred), but the company would still sack her without a qualm if there was an economic recession. The company expects loyalty from her, but may not be able to show such loyalty in return. We’re almost getting back to the very first dilemma in the book with the question of the few vs. the many. Some lose their jobs/lives so that others may have them because the alternative is for all to lose their jobs/lives. It’s an unpleasant reality.
Tomorrow (or perhaps some time this afternoon because it’s a really grey, gloomy day with a hint of precipitation here in Chengdu) some ethical dilemmas of Biblical origin.
Comments