Corporate Ethics (2)

In her book, “the virtue of selfishness” (1961), Ayn Rand argued that the achievement of his own happiness is a man’s highest moral purpose. She was and still is closely associated with ethical egoism. Ayn Rand argued against the ethics of altruism saying that it was a totally destructive idea; rather, she fiercely advocated for what she called the “reality of the individual person.” According to that logic, when people decided to help others, they were sacrificing the self at their expense. Those rules, she insisted, were imposed by a society that treated people as “sacrificial animals” because an attempt at helping others constituted a surrender of obligations to the self. In essence, take all you can at the expense of others if necessary because ultimately your only obligations are egocentric.

            In spite of the widespread refutation of the theory of Ethical Egoism by philosophers and theorists alike, in particular James and Stuart Rachels, the corporate world seems oblivious to its destructive nature not only on struggling individuals but also even on the entire economic infrastructure of a society. In their book “The Elements of Moral Philosophy,” Rachels argued that the theory of Ethical Egoism was an arbitrary doctrine that was equitable to the principles of racism. Because, according to them, both doctrines violated the Principle of Equal Treatment, they were unacceptable. The following argument exposed the weaknesses of the theory of destruction. “It {Ethical Egoism} advocates that each of us divide the world into two categories of people—ourselves and all the rest—and that we regard the interest of those in the first group as more important that the interests of those in the second group” (2007, 87). This ideology has conflict written all over it. Nevertheless, Corporate Capitalism continues to jump off of the same cliff singing its best mantra “the customer is always right.”

            Meanwhile, on the surface, corporations advocate for truth and honesty. For instance, they put all new applicants to extensive psychological assessments in search of the brightest and most honest candidates. They also have zero tolerance policies in place to prevent theft and dishonesty. Further, they employ reputable public relations firms to paint an attractive portrait of their companies.

On the other hand, they build ambitious marketing departments to create deceptive strategies to gain and retain the public’s attention. Further, they hire merciless hangmen, their CEOs, to see their profit margins through the roof. The double standard couldn’t be more evident. Sing lullabies to customers while conspiring against them. Executives always say that they are acting on behalf of the shareholders, yet when, through their ill-advised practices, they destroy an entire company, shareholders and workers alike lose everything. Even worse, we now know that such practices can send the world economy spinning on its tail, leaving companies’ scrambling for government bailouts in an effort to stay afloat.

            How then do victims, the consumer, trust such entities that know no ethical boundaries or have any moral standards? Thus far, the well being of the consumer those companies rely on for growth is virtually non-existent. Moreover, the hangmen rarely get punished and those who do get leniency. In addition, the most cunning of mercenaries jump off and ride their golden parachutes into the shadows of luxury. Eventually, the stories fall off the media’s radar. These so-called watchdogs that are only concerned with tomorrow’s big highlights and their ratings. This is a win-win scenario for the egoists’ ideologists and a lose-lose for the impotent worker or consumer.

            In all fairness, a selective democracy such as ours thrives on a healthy private sector. The government cannot be the sole driver of the economy. The inevitable result would be a socialist society, an ideograph that would send chills down the spines of citizens of any free and democratic society. Capitalism’s dependency upon an honest and prosperous private sector is that of entrepreneurship on consumerism and vice versa. Hence, we must find a way to coexist absent any ethical egoist greed.

            This problem calls for a paradigm shift; a new business model that would emphasize innovations over greed.  Consumers should no longer be handed the tab of highway robbers whose wealth is made at their expense. The message should be clear and concise: There is no reward for deviance. The out-dated and arbitrary doctrine of ethical egoism must be thrown out and replaced.

If corporations really want to reestablish the rusted trust and respect of consumers in corporate capitalism, they need to get back to basics and treat the customers not as prey, but individuals with needs. A new paradigm based on mutual respect and equal treatment would not hinder profitability. In fact, it would ensure consumer loyalty and guarantee long-term success as it always has. After all, research has revealed that we are habitual users, which tend to migrate continually to the same or similar activities. Eventually, customers even show a degree of identification with products and/or service providers, whoever they may be. Instead of destroying the lives of individuals, communities and even societies, it serves a greater purpose to ensure stability, prosperity, and ultimately happiness for all.

Rapadoo