Does globalisation encourage or discourage the pursuit of good ethics as the foundation of good business? Flashcards
(9 cards)
INTRODUCTION
- Define key terms
- LOA
Define key terms:
• Globalisation refers to the increasing interconnectedness of economies, markets, and cultures, often involving multinational corporations expanding across borders.
• Good ethics in business means conduct that is morally responsible toward all stakeholders, such as employees, consumers, and the environment.
• The phrase “foundation of good business” implies that ethical behaviour is not merely desirable, but essential for sustainable, fair, and just commercial activity.
Thesis (Line of Argument):
While globalisation has the potential to promote ethical business by lifting people out of poverty and encouraging international standards, in practice it more often discourages the pursuit of good ethics. This is due to its tendency to empower corporations, erode accountability, and create structures where exploitation can thrive under the guise of economic growth. A balanced ethical framework, as offered by Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism and Kant’s deontology, supports restrictions on globalisation to ensure it aligns with the pursuit of good ethics.
Paragraph 1
MAIN BODY PARAGRAPH 1: Globalisation Discourages Good Ethics
MAIN BODY PARAGRAPH 1: Globalisation Discourages Good Ethics
A01
• Globalisation often leads to offshore outsourcing, where businesses move production to countries with cheaper labour, losing jobs in wealthier nations and exploiting vulnerable workers abroad.
• Sweatshops are a clear example—violating social CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility)—through poor working conditions, low pay, and even child labour.
• This leads to corporate monopolies, where businesses gain undue influence over political processes and laws, undermining democratic accountability (e.g. Noam Chomsky’s warning about business power).
• Utilitarianism struggles here: while act utilitarians like Will MacAskill might defend sweatshops as increasing net happiness (workers are “better off” than starving), this permits significant exploitation.
• Kantian ethics objects strongly: treating people as a mere means violates the categorical imperative. Sweatshops, monopolies, and legal manipulation are all morally wrong.
• Even Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism would set clear boundaries: sweatshops violate the harm principle unless chosen freely by autonomous adults. Mill would likely allow them only temporarily, demanding long-term reform.
MAIN BODY PARAGRAPH 1: Globalisation Discourages Good Ethics
A02
• Globalisation’s economic benefits (e.g. reducing global poverty from 70% to 12% between 1960–2012) must be weighed against ethical costs.
• Mill’s framework provides a middle-ground: accept globalisation, but under regulated rules that ensure happiness in the long run—like banning child labour and protecting workers’ rights.
• Kant’s position is more absolutist: no exploitation is ever justified, making his approach morally admirable, but perhaps too rigid (e.g. refusing to allow lying even to save a life).
• The calculation problem undermines utilitarian defences of globalisation: long-term harm (e.g. weakening democratic institutions, spreading exploitative norms) may outweigh short-term economic gains.
• Globalisation discourages ethics not because it cannot be ethical, but because it allows businesses to prioritise profit over people in the absence of strong moral regulation.
• Marxist critics (e.g. Karl Marx, Anand Giridharadas) argue capitalism inherently encourages exploitation. CSR is often dismissed as hypocritical window-dressing—e.g. Bezos funding schools for children his company underpays.
• However, Marx’s alternative, communism, has largely failed in practice. In contrast, regulated capitalism, influenced by Kantian and Rule Utilitarian ideals, has demonstrably improved lives.
Paragraph 2
MAIN BODY PARAGRAPH 2: Globalisation Can Encourage Good Ethics — But Only Under Moral Constraints
MAIN BODY PARAGRAPH 2: Globalisation Can Encourage Good Ethics — But Only Under Moral Constraints
A01
• Globalisation creates interconnectivity that enables shared moral standards—e.g. international labour laws, environmental targets, and whistleblowing protections.
• Whistleblowing, legally protected in many liberal democracies, is a mechanism to uphold ethics in global business. E.g. Edward Snowden’s NSA case demonstrates exposing wrongdoing at great personal risk.
• Utilitarian view: Whistleblowing is good if it reduces suffering more than it causes. But this depends on accurate prediction—very difficult in real business contexts.
• Kantian view: whistleblowing is always right if it exposes immoral acts—lying and deception are never permissible, so truth-telling becomes a duty.
• Globalisation can also spread Environmental CSR practices—e.g. pressure on corporations to reduce emissions globally.
• Some argue Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism offers the best compromise: if society follows rules like “ban child labour” or “protect whistleblowers,” happiness is maximised over time.
MAIN BODY PARAGRAPH 2: Globalisation Can Encourage Good Ethics — But Only Under Moral Constraints
A02
• Globalisation provides the means, not the motivation, for ethics. It creates a framework for ethical conduct, but unless restrained by strong values (as per Mill or Kant), it easily leads to harm.
• While Friedman’s shareholder theory claims a business’s only duty is to maximise profit, this fails to account for ethical obligations within a social contract. Businesses benefit from the stability and infrastructure of a society, so they owe responsibilities in return.
• CSR initiatives may be used for PR purposes, hiding deeper unethical conduct. However, Rule Utilitarianism allows for evolving norms that gradually hold businesses to higher standards.
• Adam Smith’s free market ideals, while historically optimistic, fail when monopolies dominate. Smith’s “invisible hand” breaks down if competition is crushed by global corporate power.
• Therefore, ethics must not be optional; globalisation only encourages the pursuit of good ethics if it is tethered to moral frameworks and democratic oversight.
• Best solution lies between extremes: not Friedman’s laissez-faire capitalism, not Marx’s revolution, but regulated capitalism that aligns with Kant’s duty-based ethics and Mill’s evolving, rule-based morality.
CONCLUSION
Globalisation, by its very structure, discourages the pursuit of good ethics unless regulated by strong ethical principles. While it has the potential to raise living standards and connect people globally, its current form tends to empower businesses at the expense of workers, communities, and democratic values.
Both Kantian ethics and Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism demonstrate that globalisation must be constrained by moral laws or rules if it is to serve as a foundation for good business.
Line of Argument Restated:
Ethical business requires more than just profit-driven competition; it requires a commitment to treating people as ends in themselves and maximising happiness through fair, universal moral rules. Without these, globalisation becomes a tool for exploitation, not ethical progress.
