A much deeper understanding of why business and morality may (falsely) seem to be opposites can be gained by reading the nonfiction writings of Ayn Rand.

The short answer is that morality is generally equated with altruism, and earning a profit is a selfish act, so business and morality are taken to be opposities. In fact, given a proper moral code, which is one of rational self-interest, the conflict between business and morality dissolves, and the values you mention such as fairness and honesty are upheld as being in one's long-term, rational self-interest.

If you're interested in reading further, I would recommend Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" on ethics, and "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" on the moral justification of capitalism.

Posted by: Randy Grow at August 3, 2003 05:09 PM

Is it safe to give a primary email address in an MT comment?

Posted by: Randy Grow at August 3, 2003 07:15 PM

Sorry, but I don't buy that logic. I remember reading that in a survey of the Albuquerque C of C, about 2/3rd of the members stated that they would do the same thing Microsoft does if they could get away with it.

I equate business morality with being forthright in your business dealings, not intentionally deceiving your customers. But, evidentally, most businesspeople fell that cheating to get sales is an acceptable means to an end.

I can't find total blame with them when they see the leader of this country is a liar and a cheat and has been all of his life, and rich white collar criminals get away with their crimes.

Posted by: J Pfersich at August 17, 2003 11:23 AM

I found your equation of unethical business practices with theft very succinct and would like to elaborate on why it rings so true.

Morality and business would be a very easy issue to resolve if we all started out with the same opportunities. But we don't and as a result even when we try to play fair, it can still be very unfair.

One effective way to explain this concept to children might be to ask them: If you play a game with a friend who is handicapped or has never played this game before, you play by all the rules (no pushing, no shoving, no foul play) and you win 30-0. What does that victory really mean? Was it stolen or earned? Would you be proud of it? Did you actually accomplish anything?

Day to day, we all do this, play by the rules and win easily over people who never had a chance to begin with. It's not a reason to limit ourselves, (that would take us back to Communism) but it certainly puts a different spin on our accomplishments.

(It is also a good reason to abandon the "relative" goal of competition with each other in pursuit of the far more interesting "absolute" goal of overcoming external challenges and hurdles to progress.)

Posted by: hm at August 19, 2003 11:00 AM

This is an issue close to my heart and I believe in the past it has been demonstrated that Business and Ethics need not be an either-or proposition.

I have been lucky enough to come across two such profound examples.

Both of these texts propose radical yet workable solutions. It is perhaps this quality that makes them susceptible to rejection and obscurity.

Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered [1973]
The author argues that the modern economic structure of infinite growth is unsustainable as it leads to gross economic inefficiencies. He proposes working units with the emphasis on people instead of the product.

Forget the word 'economics', each page of this book is loaded with wisdom on life, work and the bigger questions facing these issues.

Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/kpb8

Organizing for Empowerment: An Interview with AES's Roger Sant and Dennis Bakke [HBR Jan 99]
AES Corp, a $33 Billion power company shows how a strong corporate culture driven by core values of integrity, fairness, social responsibility and fun can be as profitable as empowering.

Harvard Business Online: http://tinyurl.com/kpb6
AES Corporate Culture: http://www.aes.com/culture/

Posted by: Manu Sharma at August 21, 2003 04:08 AM