1 A DISCUSSION ON BUSINESS ETHICS: PART 3 The principle of rights A right is an individuals entitlement to something.

This something could either be derived from a set of legal rules (which themselves crystallised from something a priori) like the constitution which guarantees every individual the right to free speech, or from another set of beliefs that every human is empowered to do something or to demand that something is done for them a basic human liberty which involves free choice. Legal rights are limited to a particular jurisdiction whereas moral rights transcend jurisdictions and tend to find fairly universal application. In the context of business ethics, we must assume that the questions that arise emanate from a legalised framework. Being legal does not automatically make something morally right or justifiable. By moral rights is firstly meant, the absence of prohibitions against the person acting as moral agent in pursuing some activity. Secondly it is meant that a moral agent may be specifically empowered or authorised to do something. Lastly, there are circumstances where others are prohibited from acting in a certain way towards us. It is these last circumstances that are generally regarded as most important as they prevent others from interfering with our ability to choose freely as moral agents. A characteristic of every right is that it has a corresponding obligation or duty. The famous philosopher Immanuel Kant developed his categorical imperative on the basis that everyone has a right to be treated the same as everyone else and everyone has a corresponding duty to act in the same way. He postulated that we should only act in a particular manner if we are prepared to allow every person in the same circumstances to act in the same way as we would. This is not the same as the cop-out maxim..Do unto others... Our relationships with people should therefore not be for what we can get out of them, but for the sake of the relationship. People should be treated not as means to an end, but as an end in themselves. Kant argues that if these things are present, we can not but act morally we are duty bound. Although by far one of the best theories in explaining why we have moral rights, the Kantian theory, by introducing the concept of duty, eliminates freedom of choice. We saw above, that a truly moral decision must be one voluntarily made. In Kants model, we are duty bound and have no such freedom. In the previous part we saw that the principle of utility focuses on bringing about a social equilibrium by placing the interests of the

2 largest group before the interests of the individual. According to the principle of rights, the interests of the individual are regarded as paramount so already a healthy tension exists between these two principles. Which will/ must prevail morally and in which circumstances? It is commonly regarded that individual interests must bow before the interests of the greater group this forms the basis of the arguments developed by social contractarians. Citizens voluntarily contract with the state to limit their individual rights for the benefit of safety and security and welfare. Can the same apply in a business context? A famous case study involves the maker of infant formula which it distributed into the poorest parts of Africa in conjunction with an extensive advertising campaign extolling its virtues and encouraging mothers to give up breastfeeding. It was found that whilst profits were up, isolated cases of infant mortality was attributed to the formula because the mixing instructions were not being adhered to either because mothers could not read, or had insufficient access to clean drinking water. The formula was diluted beyond its nourishing capacity, partly due to a mistaken belief in the power of the formula in turn, a result of successful advertising and partly due to limited funds with which to buy the formula. On the whole, many more babies benefitted from the formula that those who did not. Those who did not, would in all probability have become part of the mortality statistics regardless. What would you do if you were a director of the company? Which principle would you adopt and what would your decision be based on that principle? Why? Chris vd Walt Copyright reserved Selected extracts from: The Moral Philosophers. An Introduction to Ethics: Norman R. 2nd edition. Oxford University Press 1998 Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases: Velasquez M.G. 3rd Edition. Prentice Hall 02/05/2008 Chris is a founder of ISS Compliance and holds a law degree and a masters degree in philosophy on the subject of business ethics.