This paper compares Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative with Frans de Waal's empathy- and reciprocity-based theory of morality, applying both frameworks to the real-world context of business management and profit maximization. The paper examines how Kant's rational moral law guides consistent decision-making while leaving room for individual moral corruption, and how De Waal's emphasis on compassion and reciprocity offers a humanizing counterbalance. Through the lens of wage fairness, material quality, and worker relations, the author ultimately argues that a morality grounded in empathy produces better long-term outcomes — for employees, customers, and business owners alike — than one governed solely by rational self-interest.
The paper uses comparative philosophical application — taking two competing ethical frameworks and running the same real-world scenario through each to reveal their practical differences. This technique is especially effective in applied ethics writing because it prevents the analysis from becoming purely abstract and forces the writer to commit to a reasoned judgment about which framework is preferable and why.
The paper opens by introducing both thinkers and establishing the business profit scenario as a test case. It then works through Kant's framework, identifies its vulnerability to corruption, and introduces De Waal's empathy-based theory as a corrective. The central analytical move — revising the profit maxim to foreground human relationships — bridges the two frameworks. The conclusion personalizes the argument, with the author endorsing a compassion-first approach on both ethical and pragmatic long-term grounds.
When considering human morality, some very complicated pitfalls can arise — hence the various ethical debates surrounding issues like the death penalty, abortion, and even fundamentally private matters such as gay marriage. Many of these pitfalls result not only from emotion, but from the fundamental principles according to which individuals hold their religious and moral beliefs. 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 be the guiding principle according to which decisions are made. Kant claims that this is a rational process not ruled by emotion, but by rational thought — comparing potential decisions and their effects against 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 "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, 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 a business manager will use the lowest wages and the cheapest materials in order to achieve maximum profits for the company. A universal law related to this would then be that all business managers minimize their labor and material costs to maximize 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 for personal profit, but also to balance such profit with a central set of personal values — a moral code 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 operations occur, such as minimum wage laws or tax obligations. These elements impact 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 the law of the country.
On the other hand, a business manager may just as easily be somewhat corrupt and ignore codes such as minimum wage requirements or quality material standards in favor of the highest possible profit. Such a business owner might employ illegal workers for wages below the minimum, or evade taxes to the detriment of the country's economy, its customers, and its workers.
According to Kant's framework, the potential for corruption seems excessive when profit maximization is the governing maxim. This might or might not mean that a business owner would adhere to generally accepted laws and codes — the outcome depends entirely on that individual's personal moral compass. Such a world seems prone to contradiction, with no reliable check against the pursuit of self-interest at others' expense. Rather than accepting this as an inevitable consequence of Kant's categorical imperative, it seems necessary to add an extra element to the framework in order to account for more consistently ethical outcomes.
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 would then serve as the primary determiner of his or her actions, while the profit margin takes a secondary position.
In personal terms, it is preferable to live in a world where compassion is shown to subordinates as fellow human beings, rather than regarding them as instruments towards a higher profit margin. Even if Kantian principles oblige adherence to the general laws of the country and of business to maximize reputation, there is simply too much opportunity for individually held lack of morality within a purely rational framework. Being driven by compassion for others rather than purely by profit maximization is both the more ethical and the more sustainable path. By maximizing loyalty between oneself, one's customers, and one's employees, profit may be maximized in the long term — even if this is not immediately apparent in the short term.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.