Business Ethics and Aristotle Virtue in the Workplace

Reflection on Hobbes

Introduction

In “The Misery of the Natural Condition of Mankind” Hobbes begins by arguing that equality exists among men in spite of physical and intellectual differences. He states that even the weakest can conspire to kill the strongest so that the same threat to both exists for both. It is from this innate equality, Hobbes contends, that “ariseth equality of hope of our ends” (Hobbes, p. 12). The problem, as Hobbes sees it, is that two men who desire the same thing cannot both enjoy and therefore they are doomed to become enemies. There is of course a high degree of presumption in his view, and it is unfettered by any religious assumptions—such as the view that some desire heaven and believe that all can obtain it—but Hobbes appears to be talking strictly of physical objects that men desire. Still he represents life as a zero sum game in which there can be only one winner when all participants are vying for the same prize. In fact, the whole of Hobbes’ thinking is characterized by the zero sum game mentality. This paper will provide a reflection on Hobbes’ writing and relate it to business ethics.

What Hobbes Says

Thus, according to Hobbes, men are concerned with power, with having power over one another, and this concern occupies a great deal of their time and energy: competition, diffidence, and glory are the main factors that cause quarrels among them, as Hobbes notes. When men compete, they do so to gain what only one of them can have. When diffidence is the factor they quarrel over matters of safety and security. When they quarrel over matters of pride or personal honor, they matter is one of glory. This is how Hobbes defines the nature of man’s situation on earth. It is somewhat narrow, however, in that it does not consider that men might quarrel over matters of truth, of what they perceive to be true, and over what they believe to be right.

For instance, when Gandhi was assassinated in India, it was not by a Muslim but by a Hindu nationalist who believed that Gandhi was betraying India into the hands of Islam by recommending that the newly independent state be led by a non-Hindu. This was a matter of belief about what was right; it had nothing to do with competition, diffidence, or glory—it was very much, instead, a matter of religious perspective. In fact, religious perspective is very often the big reason people fight. Malcolm X was assassinated for speaking out against the prophet Elijah Mohammad. Martin Luther King, Jr., was thrown into prison for putting his religious beliefs into practice on the streets in the South. Hobbes has a view, however, that is much more focused on Enlightenment ideals—equality, liberty, and fraternity, as though these were the prime motivators of human experience. They were the prime motivators, according to Enlightenment philosophers, but they were largely novel at the time and have not aged well in the light of the 20th and now 21st centuries; rather, it appears to be true that Orwell had a better understanding of human motivation in terms of the individual’s relationship to the state.

But what does Hobbes say of peace? He says passion is what inclines men to peace. Yet if it is passion that inclines men to war, how is it also passion that inclines men to peace? It seems contradictory to say so. He lists fear as one passion that inclines men to peace (fear of death), yet shouldn’t such a passion just as easily incline one to war (over the safety concern—which Hobbes has already said is one reason men fight)? Hobbes does not seem to be following any sort of logic. He lists another passion as desire—desire for commodious living; but this could easily become a passion that leads to quarreling; and so it goes too with the passion of hopeful industry. Hobbes is not really saying anything that really has a classical philosophical character to it but rather seems to be writing in a fanciful manner, similar to what other Romantic Enlightenment modern philosophers do, from Nietzsche to Rousseau—they are all alike, all writing in this poetic prose style, yet giving little concern for whether what they have to say is logical. One can clearly contrast Hobbes’s writing with Aristotle’s, which precedes it and is much more lucid, much more precise, much more logic-minded—and much less poetically styled.

How It Applies to Business Ethics

How then are these ideas to be applied to business? What can be made of them? In business ethics, one has to be mindful of what one owes to one’s stakeholders, and if one is a leader or in a stewardship position, one has to be mindful of acting on behalf of others’ interests. If one is an agent acting for a principle it is the same (Eisenhardt, 1989; Jensen & Meckling, 1976).

In business, one has an ethical duty to be mindful of others’ interests, so that all involved can be successful—such is the crux of agency theory. The idea that resonates in Hobbes, however, is that men generally only act for the common interest of one another, i.e., the peace, if they are moved by some passion such as fear of death, desire for gain, or hope to put their industry to good use so as to achieve that gain. Men seemed to be ruled, in other words, by dark passions that are ultimately self-interested. How does this square with business ethics?

The fact is that it cannot square with business ethics for in business one has to avoid dark passions lest one stumble upon the dark side of leadership. The dark side of leadership is where unrestrained self-interest is manifested most; it is where virtues tend to be absent, and it is where one will engage in any manner of actions, from deception and dishonesty to hostility and authoritarianism, to obtain what he wants. In the dark side of leadership, the person may be out for personal glory, may be in competition with others, and may be motivated by personal honor. Of the three, personal honor is really the only one that puts him in line with business ethics.

The integrity of actor is what can be meant by personal honor, and this integrity is important when it comes to authenticity. From an ethical perspective, a person in business should be honest and forthcoming but should also be operating from an ethical standpoint. The main ethical standpoints include virtue ethics, duty ethics, and utilitarian ethics, but one could also add egoism ethics to that list, as it is the standpoint that best characterizes the most common modern ethical perspective of today. In ethical egoism, a person acts for his own good, justifying whatever he does so long as it benefits him. This is really a perspective that stems from what Hobbes is saying—namely that people are self-interested and act on their own self-interest. This idea also correlates with agency theory.

However, self-interest can also create conflicts of interest in the business world. For instance, if a person believes he can steal from his employer because his employer will not notice is he morally justified in doing so? If one is applying ethical egoism then perhaps he is justified in doing so if the reward is greater than the risk and he can do so without any harm to himself. But from a perspective of duty ethics or virtue ethics, one could not justify such behavior. Virtue ethics says that whatever a person does it can only be justified so long as it helps to build his character and form it in accordance with some virtue. Stealing is not virtuous and therefore would not be acceptable from a virtue ethics perspective. Likewise, duty ethics holds that a person must do that which he is bound to do by his state in life; i.e., he must do his duty—and one does not have a duty to steal from one’s employer but on the contrary has a duty to serve the employer and his interests. So neither one of these perspectives would justify theft. As for utilitarian ethics it could be argued that it does not make much difference so long as the amount is not great and won’t be missed and won’t harm the common good in some way. For this reason, utilitarianism should be viewed as an inferior ethical system or rather one that is rooted in subjectivism, as ethical egoism is. For who will say that ethical egoism which can justify such theft is moral? For that reason, the two go together, and virtue ethics and duty ethics stand apart.

In business, the words of Hobbes cannot very easily be applied except that they would help to characterize a certain mentality that one might find in the business world today—a place where there are often men who are competing with one another—for some position, or for some sale, or for market share, and so on. There is also the factor of personal glory that goes into decision making, as Hobbes points out. But there is thirdly the matter of personal honor—and this is where it really matters because in the business world, integrity, honor, and ethics are important for relationships, trust, and success. The greatest organizations are those that have built relationships and that have earned people’s trust.

Organizations that do not earn the trust of others end up collapsing. One can look at the story of Enron or at the story of Nikola in recent times. These are companies that tried to mislead the public about their products and their actions, and they ultimately ended up paying the price for their deception because no one likes to be deceived. Honor will lead me to quarrel, as Hobbes pointed out—is not all just about competition or fear or desire for gain. Honor and integrity also play a huge part in the business world, and for a person to do well and for an organization to succeed as it should, the person really has to have a solid basis of integrity and honor.