This paper examines the Enron–Merrill Lynch Nigerian Barge scandal through three ethical frameworks: Kantian ethics, virtue theory, and corporate social responsibility (CSR). It begins with a factual case summary of how Enron engineered a fraudulent "sale" of interest in Nigerian power-generating barges to Merrill Lynch in order to inflate its financial statements. The paper then applies Kant's categorical imperative, Aristotelian virtue ethics, and CSR principles to each key action taken by both companies. A structured analysis table evaluates specific decisions — including Enron's book-cooking, the fictitious sale arrangement, Merrill Lynch's knowing participation, and the broader societal consequences — against these three ethical standards, demonstrating how every major decision in the scandal violated foundational principles of ethical conduct.
The paper demonstrates applied ethical analysis — taking abstract philosophical frameworks and systematically deploying them against concrete factual scenarios. This technique requires the writer to first explain each theory on its own terms, then show precisely how specific real-world decisions satisfy or violate each theory's criteria. The analysis table is a particularly effective device for this, as it forces explicit alignment between facts, frameworks, and evaluative conclusions.
The paper follows a theory-then-application structure. It opens with a factual case summary, then devotes a section each to Kantian ethics, virtue theory, and CSR — establishing the evaluative criteria before applying them. The final section brings all three frameworks to bear on the specific actions of both Enron and Merrill Lynch in a comparative table format, closing with the broader societal consequences of the fraud.
Enron, a Texas-based energy company, was created in 1985 and experienced such phenomenal growth that it became the seventh largest company in the United States — until its bankruptcy in 2001. Enron was involved in a number of scandals, among which was the Nigerian Barge Case. Essentially, Enron attempted to sell interest in three power-generating barges off the coast of Nigeria but was unsuccessful. By December 1999, Merrill Lynch agreed to buy Enron's interest. Enron "loaned" Merrill Lynch 75% of the purchase money, offering a guaranteed return of 15% on seven million dollars — $1.05 million in six months.
Essentially, the entire deal was a fraud, designed only to make Enron appear more profitable than it was. Most of the Enron promises were verbal, and the transaction was never really a "sale" but a short-term leveraged loan. Enron's objective was to improve the appearance of its income statement so that it could borrow money at a lower interest rate, pay higher bonuses, and maintain its growth momentum. Enron was unable to find a legitimate purchaser within the agreed-upon timeframe, so its CFO, Andrew Fastow, arranged for another Enron entity, LJM2, to fulfill the deal. As a result, Merrill Lynch executives were accused of obstruction of justice, conspiracy, fraud, and lying (Flood, 2005; Ethics in Finance, Chapter 11).
"To tell the truth is a duty, but is a duty only with regard to one who has a right to the truth. But no one has a right to a truth that harms others" (Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals). To many, Kant is the father of modern ethics, having developed the view that morality is derived as an absolute — or categorical imperative — necessary for human society to function appropriately. He distinguishes two types of concepts: (1) empirical ideas that we learn through experience, and (2) a priori ideas that we arrive at because they exist in the structure of reason itself.
Moral actions, to Kant, are a priori: "Reason's function is to bring a will that is good in itself, as opposed to good for some particular purpose" (Flikschuh, 2000). Kant identifies at least three propositions about duty that speak to the present situation: (1) Is the action morally good and done from duty? (2) Is the action judged by a principle that could serve as a universal moral maxim for society? (3) Is the action motivated not merely by self-interest, but by respect for the rational imperative that transcends our other interests?
Since humans began living in cities and forming social and political organizations, they have debated what is good, what is evil, what makes one action moral and another immoral, and how the philosophy of ethics balanced with virtue benefits both society and the individual. For many thinkers, virtue theory describes how each individual should act morally so that people can not only coexist but form a more positive and productive society. Indeed, one hallmark of life in an advanced society is the capacity to distinguish right from wrong — and to act accordingly.
One philosophical approach to this question is deontology, which emphasizes duties and rules grounded in sound, practical reasons that enable people to live together rather than in arbitrary prohibitions. The principles of virtue theory take the most admirable human characteristics and focus them on finding constructive ways to relate to others, seek mutually beneficial outcomes, and take pride in how we live. As Aristotle writes in the Nicomachean Ethics: "To experience these emotions — fear, courage, desire, anger, pity, and pleasure — at the right times and on the right occasions and toward the right persons and for the right causes and in the right manner is the mean or the supreme good, which is characteristic of virtue" (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, II; see also Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Virtue Ethics, 2012).
You’re 48% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.