Kant and De Waal When

Kant and De Waal

When considering human morality, some very complicated pitfalls can arise. Hence the various ethical debates that range around issues like the death penalty, abortion, and even a fundamentally private matter such as gay marriage. Many of these pitfalls are the result not only of emotion, but of the fundamental principles according to which individuals hold their religious and moral beliefs. Hence, Kant suggests that any action or decision should first be held up against a person's fundamental moral belief system or what he terms "good will." What an individual believes is "good" should therefore the guiding principle according to which decisions are made. Kant claims that this is a rational process that is not ruled by emotion but rather by rational thought, in comparing potential decisions and their effects to existing moral values. According to De Waal, on the other hand, moral decisions are based upon empathy and reciprocity; in other words, the human ability to feel emotion, which culminates in the maxim of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." For De Waal, human emotion is the primary moral compass that allows people to feel a sense of humanity towards others, and to act accordingly. When considering an issue like business profits, for example, one might use a combination of Kant's and De Waal's theories in order to determine the course of action that would display the highest sense of morality.

In terms of business profits, the primary maxim would be that I as business manager will use the lowest wages and the cheapest materials in order to achieve maximum profits for my company. A universal law related to this can then be that all business managers will minimize their labor and material costs to maximize their profit.

When Kant's principle of the categorical imperative is taken into account, it must necessarily be seen in conjunction with his views on the moral law. For Kant, individuals do not only use their rational minds to choose an action to take for personal profit, but also to balance such profit with a central set of personal values or a moral code that is important to that individual. This can translate simply to a sense of business fairness towards customers or, in legal terms, to adhering to the laws of the country in which the operations occur, such as minimum wage or taxes. These elements impact on the ability to maximize the profit margin, but are nonetheless important in a sound and rational decision making process. Such an individual would then rationally make consistent profit decisions according to both a personal moral code and according to the law of the country.

On the other hand, a business manager may just as well be somewhat corrupt and ignore codes such as minimum wage or quality materials in favor of the highest possible profit. Such a business owner may employ illegal workers for wages below the minimum or evade taxes to the detriment of the economy of the country, customers, and workers.

According to Kant's rule then, the potential for corruption seems excessive in terms of maximizing profits. This might or might not mean that a business owner would adhere to generally accepted laws and codes. I do not think that I would like to live in such a world, since contradictions might too easily arise. Instead, I would add an extra element to the categorical imperative suggested by Kant.

De Waal's theory adds a dimension to Kant's categorical imperative. He claims that even animals have a culture of compassion and reciprocity, which is echoed in the human race. According to this theory, the rational mind is not the sole element in human decision making, but emotions such as empathy and compassion also play a role. One might therefore modify the maxim by saying I would maximize my profits within reasonable limits of empathy and reciprocity. In other words, as a business owner, I would empathize with the financial plight of my workers by paying them according to their position and the hours that they work rather than according to an artificial minimum imposed by wage laws. Also, I would ensure the highest quality of materials to provide my customers with value for their money.

Reciprocity would then occur when customers keep returning and when worker turnover is minimized. With this in view, one might therefore move the profit drive towards a less prominent position in the maxim, which might be changed to focus more on human relationships: I will maximize wages and the quality of material within reason to maintain good relationships with my clients and employees. This is a world I would rather live in than one in which maximizing profits is the primary maxim.

What this comes down to is that a manager who follows Kant's purely rational reasoning process would depend greatly upon his or her individual moral compass for providing fair products and services at a fair price and at fair wages for workers. The profit margin would also be a greater determiner of outcome for such business managers. A person following De Waal's principle, on the other hand, would experience greater goodwill towards other human beings, which will then be the primary determiner of his or her actions, while the profit margin takes a secondary position.