Key Terms

Recently my students debated the merits, and demerits, of credit card companies. I was impressed by their level of argumentation. I was also struck by how the debate revolves around certain key terms.

The first term is the notion of being voluntary. For a trade to count as a trade it must be voluntary. The Radical Capitalists restrict this to the use of force or the threat of force. Anything else goes. There are reasons to draw the line here, but there are also reasons to ask whether jettisoning cargo in rough weather is also "voluntary" in the same way that just throwing cargo overboard for fun would be. There are differences in the criminal law that draw distinctions between various levels of intent and hence voluntariness. Does the level of need affect this?

The second term is information. There is nothing illogical about a system of total caveat emptor. Yet, such a system seems to define the very essence of a black market. Rand points this out when Rearden has to get coal on the black market. Genuine markets have some built in protections concerning the accuracy of information. All the Radical Capitalists believe in prohibiting fraud - but just what is fraud? Is it only telling a lie or can fraud be perpetrated through more subtle means?

Bill

Platitudes

Back from break and embarking on two courses this semester: Business Ethics and Radical Capitalism. This post is about business ethics.

It seems quite common for those speaking of business ethics to talk about the necessity, or moral goodness, of compliance with the customs and expectations of the community.

I am reading this now in Robert Solomon's It's Good Business, but it can also be found in Friedman's "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits."

First - this is not necessarily true. Communities can harbor racist, sexist, or any number of horrible customs and expectations. The truth of this claim would seem to rest entirely on the prior morality of the expectations. Yet, even this contingent claim should be challenged.

What if the expectations of the community are moral? If one is a moral monist then there is only one right code and both community and business ought to abide by it. Notice, though, that even here the normativity does not stem from following community expectations - business is obligated for the same reason everyone else is: This hypothetical set of moral rules is the only right code.

If one is a moral pluralist, then the community may be following a legitimate custom, but there may be other equally good moral customs as well. Some people are married, some are single - should a business not produce products for singles? Should I not write books that most of the community disagrees with? As long as the business is following a morally acceptable alternative path, then there is no reason to claim an obligation to follow community customs and expectations.

I simply find no reason to support the claim that business, or anyone else, is obligated to follow community customs and expectations.