Business ethics: between eudaimonia and social harmony

🇵🇱 Polski
Business ethics: between eudaimonia and social harmony

Introduction

This article analyzes fundamental ethical systems, from ancient philosophers to contemporary theories of justice. The clash of Aristotelian virtue ethics with Confucian concern for social harmony poses a key question: Is a universal managerial ethos possible in global business? We will trace how the ideas of Aristotle, Confucius, and John Rawls shape responsible leadership and corporate strategies.

Aristotle and Confucius: Ethics Driving Management

The virtue ethics of Aristotle and Confucius, though culturally distant, share a common core: virtue is a habit shaped by practice. Their goals differ. Aristotle aimed for eudaimonia – individual flourishing achieved through reason and practical wisdom (phrónēsis). Confucius, on the other hand, prioritized social harmony, built through the proper performance of roles within a network of relationships and rituals (li).

These differences lead to distinct management models. The Aristotelian model promotes a leader as an autonomous sage who weighs arguments and seeks the "golden mean." In contrast, the Confucian model views the manager as a guardian of the community, whose responsibility is based on trust and care, rather than formal procedures. This represents a clash between Western individualism and Eastern emphasis on the common good.

John Rawls: Theory of Justice and the Veil of Ignorance

John Rawls proposed a thought experiment to establish the principles of a just society. Participants, hidden behind a veil of ignorance, do not know their future social position. Under these conditions, Rawls argued, they would choose two principles: equal access to basic liberties and the so-called difference principle. This principle permits economic inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged.

This vision was opposed by libertarian Robert Nozick, for whom redistribution violates property rights and constitutes a form of coercion. Another alternative is utilitarianism, which aims to maximize overall happiness, yet risks sacrificing individual rights for the greater good of the majority. These three approaches illustrate the age-old dilemma between justice, liberty, and efficiency.

Kinko's and Paul Orfaela: The Ethics of a Startup

The story of the Kinko's startup demonstrates how ethical theory works in practice. The company's success did not stem from new technology, but from a "subversion of concepts." The informal name fostered community, and the ethics of accessibility proved key – 24/7 service points tailored to customer needs, not the owner's convenience. This was the foundation of its success.

However, the transformation into a global corporation revealed ethical challenges. Growth pressures and the personal struggles of founder Paul Orfaela led to the erosion of the original principles. His story teaches that ethics is not a luxury, but a prerequisite for lasting success. It requires continuous adaptation as a small community evolves into a complex organization.

Universal Managerial Ethos: A Synthesis of Philosophies

In a world where different value systems collide, business ethics cannot be merely a set of rules. Creating a universal managerial ethos requires synthesis. A contemporary leader needs both Aristotelian phrónēsis for making wise decisions and Confucian concern for relationships. Can we find a golden mean between the individual pursuit of success and concern for the common good? True profit is that which builds lasting value for all.

📄 Full analysis available in PDF

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the key differences between the ethics of Aristotle and Confucius in the context of business?
Aristotle focuses on individual eudaimonia and prudence (phrónēsis), while Confucius emphasizes social harmony and the importance of interpersonal relationships, treating the company as a community.
How does John Rawls's "veil of ignorance" differ from classical social contract concepts?
Rawls's veil of ignorance is a thought experiment that cuts off participants from knowledge of their own interests, enforcing impartiality in choosing principles of justice, contrary to historical founding myths.
What are Robert Nozick's main objections to Rawls's theory of justice?
Nozick criticizes Rawls's redistribution of goods, arguing that it violates property rights and the freedom of individuals to dispose of the fruits of their labor, seeing it as a form of coercion.
How does Rawls's theory inspire contemporary business ethics?
Rawls's theory justifies investments in education, diversity, and inclusion, and is invoked in debates about CSR, fair pay systems, and thinking about decisions from the perspective of all stakeholders.
Can virtue ethics provide a universal language for talking about corporate responsibility?
Yes, despite fundamental cultural differences, virtue ethics, combining Aristotelian prudence and Confucian concern for relationships, offers a common framework for analyzing and shaping responsible management practices.
Why is utilitarianism insufficient as a foundation of justice?
Utilitarianism, by seeking to maximize overall happiness, can lead to a "tyranny of the majority," where individual rights and well-being are sacrificed for the sake of collective happiness, which Rawls considers unacceptable.

Related Questions

Tags: Business ethics eudaimonia social harmony Aristotle Confucius virtue phrónēsis John Rawls veil of ignorance difference principle Robert Nozick utilitarianism justice business relations ethical management