Ethics and morality: definitions and distinctions

Introduction
Is it true that the "bottom line" of a business is profit and profit alone?  Perhaps it is for some companies, but the idea of the “triple bottom line” has been around for quite some time—and it refers not just to profits but also to people and planet. The triple bottom line has received renewed interest since the rise of the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) which refers to a company’s advocacy of and support for the values important to the “social, environmental and economic environment in which” the company operates (Castka, Bamber & Sharp, 2005, p. vii). When companies fail to consider the triple bottom line—the impact of their business operations on people and the planet as well as on profits—then they fall into that group of companies condemned by Feldman (2012) in his Sunday Review letter: such corporations fail to appreciate “how their obsession with the bottom line is shrinking their markets, both domestic and foreign.” In other words, companies have a moral obligation to multiple stakeholders—consumers, suppliers, community members and not just stockholders, as Sir James Goldsmith has argued (Rose, 1994). However, Whitehead’s statement calls into question the legitimacy of the moral argument, insisting that ethics is a purely subjective paradigm and is whatever the majority of people want it to be at any given time: "What is morality in any given time and place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like and immorality is what they dislike" (BrainyQuote, 2018). This paper will show why morality and ethics matter and why they must be objectively defined and fixed for the good of all—rather than, as Whitehead says, a loose concept that can be altered to justify one’s immoral and unethical course. It will use deontological ethics, teleological ethics, moral objectivism, and ethical relativism to explain why this is so.
Reason One
In deontological ethics, morality is defined by a set of rules rather than by the outcome of the behavior. In other words, the rules are determined by the duty that is expected of one as dictated by the ethical code of conduct. The rules are generally universal in character and are connected with traditional moral norms, such as lying is wrong, stealing is wrong, and so on. As Goldsmith points out, companies are duty-bound by the rules of conventional ethics to look after all stakeholders—a reference to the need for companies to be mindful of the triple bottom line, which is what Feldman (2012) also intimates.
Reason Two
In teleological ethics, morality is determined by the outcome—i.e., the impact it has on the greatest number of people. Ethical duty is thus defined by the outcome rather than the rules. Utilitarianism is the most common expression of teleological ethics—and even from a utilitarian perspective, it can be shown that the bottom line of a business is more than just profit, for a business is also involved in a relationship with people and with the planet: to ignore these other two aspects of business is to imagine that money comes simply because a business exists. Goldsmith argues that businesses must think about the consequences of offshoring and of chasing after cheap labor—they undercut their own communities and erode their own markets when they do so (Rose, 1995). Thus, from the teleological ethical standpoint, the triple bottom line is what companies must consider.
Reason Three
Moral objectivism asserts that moral truths are independent of the individual perception: they exist as part of the fabric of creation. Moral objectivism is linked to Plato’s concept of the transcendentals—the one, the true, the good—which Plato (2010) believed were imprinted on the soul and simply needed to be recalled by men in their upward pursuit of the good. Plato (2010) stated that “a man must have intelligence of universals, and be able to proceed from the many particulars of sense to one conception of reason” (p. 417)—i.e., man must be objective when it comes to morality in order to see how all things must align with the good for which they were intended. To argue that a company’s end is simply to benefit itself is to make the company out to be as a god, which needs nothing and is self-sufficient—but this is objectively false: a company needs patronage and supplies, and thus is dependent upon stakeholders other than stockholders. From a moral objectivist point of view, the good that a company should pursue is that which aligns with the transcendental ideals, which Plato identified as objective moral truths that should govern men’s existence. No one could argue that a company interested only in profits to the exclusion of all else is aligning itself with these ideals. Rather, a company that puts people and planet before profits, knowing that profits will follow just as good fruit comes from a good tree, is one that could be said to be in alignment with these ideals.
Reason Four
The problem with ethical relativism, which is what Whitehead’s statement uses for its argument, is that it elevates the subjective over the objective and corrupts the idea that there are universals that one can know and that one must align oneself with. Ethical relativism envisions a world in which there are no categorical imperatives because one does not owe a duty to the rules that God placed upon creation in order to bring men back to Him; instead, it envisions a world in which every man may imagine himself his own god and see within himself an end in and of itself. This can be observed as patently false simply by pointing out how man is incapable of sustaining himself by himself—just as a company is incapable of sustaining itself by focusing solely on its own financial growth. When a company seeks only profits, it undermines the community in which it exists; it offshores jobs and destroys the market that it needs to exist. The company, like man, is not an end in itself as it cannot sustain itself of its own essence. Its essence is to be part of a relationship with investors, consumers, communities, and the planet. To ignore the totality of this relationship and to focus wholly on investors—and, moreover, to imagine that this would be ethically sound—is to adopt the position of ethical relativism. It is akin to building one’s ethical framework on sand—there is no solid foundation under it, and in time the sands of relativism show as much. Numerous examples abound: Enron, Bear Stearns, AIG, and so on.
Conclusion
Whitehead’s process philosophy—i.e., the belief that change and “becoming” serve as the foundation for reality and thus for ethics—can be sharply contrasted with Kant’s categorical imperative—i.e., the belief that universals exist and can be objectively known. Whitehead is rooted in relativism, while Kant is rooted in classical objectivism. Businesses can and must have ethical standards, despite the fact that businesses are not moral agents, because they are governed by moral agents—human beings—who must consider their duty to all stakeholders, the ends of their actions, and the objective ideals that exist to show them the way.

References
BrainyQuote. (2018). Alfred North Whitehead quotes. Retrieved from
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/alfred_north_whitehead_133258
Castka, P., Bamber, C. & Sharp, J. (2005). Implementing Effective Corporate Social
Responsibility and Corporate Governance: A Framework. UK: British Standards Institution.
Feldman, J. (2012). Sunday Review: How Corporations Behave. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/opinion/sunday/sunday-dialogue-how-corporations-behave.html
Plato. (2010). The Dialouges, vol. 1. Online Library of Liberty. Retrieved from
http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/111/Plato_0131-01_EBk_v6.0.pdf
Rose, C. (1994). Interview with Sir James Goldsmith. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PQrz8F0dBI