How can one apply Kantian ethics to business ethics?

Question 1

Introduction
- Context
- Key ethical theory
- Application
- LOA

Answer 1

• Context: Business ethics involves evaluating the moral conduct of corporations in areas like globalisation, whistleblowing, and corporate social responsibility (CSR).

• Key Ethical Theory: Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics is based on duty, universalisability, and the principle of treating people as ends in themselves rather than mere means.

• Application: Kantian ethics provides a non-consequentialist framework to assess business practices like whistleblowing, CSR, and exploitation under global capitalism.

• Line of Argument: While Kantian ethics offers a morally rigorous and human-focused approach that often aligns with our intuitions about exploitation and justice, its rigidity in real-world business contexts may at times be unhelpfully idealistic.

Question 2

Paragraph 1

Answer 2

Paragraph 1: Kantian Ethics and CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility)

Question 3

Paragraph 1: Kantian Ethics and CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility)

A01

Answer 3

• CSR argues that businesses have moral responsibilities to all stakeholders, not just shareholders.

• Kant supports this because failing CSR (e.g. via sweatshops or poor environmental practices) treats people as mere means to profit.

• Kantian ethics emphasises universal moral law and the categorical imperative: only act on maxims that can be universalised and always treat humanity as an end.

• Kant would reject the shareholder theory of Milton Friedman, who argued businesses have no moral duties beyond profit-making.

• Kant sees exploitation (e.g. sweatshops) as a violation of rational autonomy and dignity, regardless of profit or outcomes.

Question 4

Paragraph 1: Kantian Ethics and CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility)

A02 Evaluation
- strength
- Applciation
- Counter
- Response
- Futher criticism

Answer 4

Strength: Kant’s insistence on human dignity aligns with our intuitions that exploitation is intrinsically wrong. Unlike utilitarianism, he refuses to sacrifice minority rights for the sake of majority happiness.

Application: In the Primark case, Kant would argue the sweatshop use was always wrong, even if cutting ties led to unemployment. Ends do not justify means.

Counter: However, utilitarian thinkers like Mill (via rule utilitarianism) argue sweatshops may be justified if they improve overall welfare, especially if alternatives are worse.
• E.g. Will MacAskill: sweatshops may prevent starvation.
• Rule Utilitarianism allows flexible, context-sensitive rules like “don’t exploit unless it would prevent worse suffering.”

Response: Kant would reject this because it reduces human value to calculable outcomes. His approach is morally reliable in resisting slippery slopes of exploitation (as warned by Noam Chomsky).

Further Criticism: Kant’s approach can be too rigid. Even in cases where small exploitation might lead to greater good (e.g. economic growth in developing nations), Kant would still prohibit it.

Question 5

Paragraph 2

Answer 5

Paragraph 2: Kantian Ethics and Whistleblowing/Globalisation

Question 6

Paragraph 2: Kantian Ethics and Whistleblowing/Globalisation

A01

Answer 6

• Whistleblowing involves revealing unethical business practices. Kant supports whistleblowing:

• Lying is non-universalizable, so truth-telling is always moral.

• Unethical corporate practices likely treat people as means; thus, whistleblowing is morally required.

• In globalisation, Kant would oppose exploitative outsourcing that prioritises profit over dignity.

• Adam Smith supported free markets for innovation, but Kant would oppose monopolies or legal manipulation that result from globalisation, as these undermine fairness and equality.

• Kant also aligns with CSR by opposing environmental degradation, seeing it as failing our duty to future rational beings.

Question 7

Paragraph 2: Kantian Ethics and Whistleblowing/Globalisation

• Strength
• Application
• Counter
• Further point
• GLobalisation criticism
• Evaluation
• Conclusion

Answer 7

• Strength: Kant’s position protects individual moral autonomy. In whistleblowing, he offers a clear moral duty to act against injustice—even at personal cost.

• Application: Edward Snowden, for example, told the truth at great cost. Kant would say his action was moral due to duty and universal moral law.

• Counter: Kant ignores consequences. What if whistleblowing bankrupts a company and harms innocent employees?

• Utilitarianism accounts for this: if whistleblowing does more harm than good, it may be immoral.

• The calculation problem arises here: we cannot reliably predict consequences. Kant turns this into a strength—ethics should not rest on uncertainty.

• Further Point: Kant’s refusal to exploit—even for noble aims—seems counter-intuitive. What if treating someone as a means avoids mass suffering (e.g. saving a factory)?

• Mill’s harm principle provides more flexibility. As long as actions don’t harm others, they can be permitted.

•	Globalisation Criticism: Kant’s approach may be overly idealistic in a capitalist system. Exploitation is often economically inseparable from participation in global supply chains.

•	Evaluation: Still, Kant provides a needed ethical ceiling. His theory offers a bulwark against the slippery slope of treating people as tools. This becomes essential as businesses gain disproportionate power in global politics.
•	Unlike Friedman, who denies businesses have any moral duties, Kant enforces a strong ethical constraint.

•	Conclusion: Kantian ethics strengthens whistleblowing and exposes the dangers of unregulated globalisation. Yet its moral absolutism may fail to handle complex real-world trade-offs.

Question 8

Conclusion
- Summary
- Evaluation
- LOA

Answer 8

• Summary: Kantian ethics applies well to business ethics by defending human dignity, CSR, and whistleblowing. It consistently opposes exploitation, regardless of economic benefits, making it a strong ethical guide in resisting corporate abuse.

• Evaluation: However, its rigid deontology struggles with real-world complexity where trade-offs are necessary. Utilitarianism—especially Mill’s rule-based approach—offers more practical flexibility while still safeguarding rights through rational rules like the harm principle.

• Final Judgement / Line of Argument: Kantian ethics is an essential moral foundation in business ethics, especially for preventing abuse and upholding integrity. Yet for application in dynamic, global markets, it may need to be balanced with more flexible theories like rule utilitarianism to achieve both ethical consistency and real-world effectiveness.