Solving Environmental Problems is Changing Cultural Perception toward Environment.

Fr. Damianus Abun, SVD, MBA, PhD.

Divine Word College of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, Philippines

College of Business.

Abstract:

This paper argues that solving environmental problems is complex because it is not a matter of introducing strict laws on environment. Laws will be always considered as an external burden to be followed. Awareness has to be awaken because the problem is coming from the mind which has been shaped by the culture. Therefore it is not a matter of laws but it is more than laws, it is about culture that has influenced the attitude and behavior of people toward environment. Changing cultural perceptions is one basic fundamental option in solving the environmental problems.

Key Words: Culture, attitude, human behavior, environmental disaster, instrumental value, intrinsic value, anthropocentricism.

Introduction

Environmental problems have become a serious concern for all human being on the planet. Why is it becoming serious concern? People have seen the connection between the environmental disaster and quality of human life. Climate change is one of the effects environmental disasters. Climate change is not a small issue but  a serious issue that threatens human life.    

Many activities or programs are initiated or introduced by the government and non-government agencies in order to address the climate change, to prevent further deterioration of climate. Projects on tree planting, waste management, recycling and solar power have been introduced. However, these activities are not common yet, in the sense that not all people are planting trees, implementing proper waste management, recycling and having a solar energy, but they are using ordinary fossil oil, and people in other parts of the world are still cutting trees and mining. Sources of water become scarce because of logging and mining. Thus climate change is still the main concern up to this moment.

Activities and programs related to environmental protections have been done, however many of those activities are curative but not preventive. Preventive measures must be done but those measures are not only limited to environmental laws and projects but there must be environmental education. The focus of environmental education should emphasize the balance concept of nature which is rooted in the culture and hopefully such education will lead to the change of perception toward the environment and change of behavior toward the environment. 

The concern for the environment and concern for quality of life is the main factor why the researcher takes his time to write this paper. The paper would like to prove that cultural perception matters to environmental problems.

 

Cultural Perception and Human Behaviors

The behavior of a person can tell many hidden things because through his/her behavior people can see or tell what his culture is. The behavior is a manifestation of culture. Therefore what I mean with the culture is the way he/she thinks, looks, beliefs or perceives about things. Thus, culture affects the attitude and attitude affects the behavior. What he/she believes, thinks or perceives, naturally it becomes his/her attitude toward the world or things or environment. Thus attitude and behavior do not operate independently but it is formed and influenced by the existing culture.

 Robert. W. Amstrong (1996) in his examination of the cultural variables suggests that there is a relationship between cultural dimensions such as Uncertainty Avoidance and Individualism as prescribed by Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and ethical perceptions. This finding supports the hypothetical linkage between the cultural environment perception and the perceived ethical problem variables posited in Hunt and Vitell's General Theory of Marketing Ethics (1986). Such study only to prove that there is relationship between culture and attitude and behavior of a person toward anything. Culture affects the way people behave ethically.

         The influence of culture is not only limited to individual behavior but also organizational behavior or society. In functionalist thinking, culture is considered a component of an integrated social system which promotes the effectiveness of the organization and the well-being of all its stakeholders. Culture refers to the assumptions, beliefs, goals, knowledge and values that are shared by members of the society. British anthropologist Edward Burnett Tylor (1874) attempted to define culture as inclusively as possible. Tylor in 1874 described culture in the following way: "Culture or civilization, taken in its wide ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society. Culture represents the high-information “ideal factors” in a system that exerts significant and partly independent influence on human events or human behaviors. When an individual is faced with an ethical dilemma, his or her value system will color the perception of the ethical ramifications of the situation (Racelis, 2009). Such argument strengthens the position of culture to influence the behavior of a person toward other people, things or environment. In this case, culture matter much on the way how human behaves.   

Another important factor of human behavior is their “core faith”. This faith can be through religion, philosophy and culture or personal belief and often affects the way a person can behave. Many people belief some sort of belief in a higher power, which makes religion a large importance in society (Nones, 2012). It is only natural for something that plays such a large role in society to have an effect on human behavior (Spilka, 1996) Morals are another factor of core faith that affects the way a person behaves. Emotions connected to morals including shame, pride, and discomfort and these can change the way a person acts. Most importantly, shame and guilt have a large impact on behavior (Tangney, 2007). Lastly, culture highly affects human behavior. The beliefs of certain cultures are taught to children from such a young age that they are greatly affected as they grow up. These beliefs are taken into consideration throughout daily life, which leads to people from different cultures acting differently. These differences are able to alter the way different cultures and areas of the world interact and act (Triandis, 1994).

Culture does not only affect the belief and values of people but it also affects their attitude. It appears to be seen as the culture affects the attitude and attitude affects the behavior of a person.   An attitude is an expression of favor or disfavor toward a person, place, thing, or event (Wyer, 1965).  In this case, attitude does not only affect the behavior of a person to another person but it can also affect his/her behavior toward things or environment.  The interesting thing about an attitude and human beings is that it alters between each individual. Everyone has a different attitude towards different things. A main factor that determines attitude is likes and dislikes. The more one likes something or someone the more one is willing to open up and accept what they have to offer. When one doesn’t like something, one is more likely to get defensive and shut down. An example of how one's attitude affects one's human behavior could be as simple as taking a child to the park or to the doctor. Children know they have fun at the park so their attitude becomes willing and positive, but when a doctor is mentioned, they shut down and become upset with the thought of pain. Attitudes can sculpt personalities and the way people view who we are. People with similar attitudes tend to stick together as interests and hobbies are common. This does not mean that people with attitudes do not interact, because they do. What it means is that specific attitudes can bring people together (e.g., religious groups). Attitudes have a lot to do with the mind which highly relates to Human behavior. The way a human will behave depends a lot on how they look at the situation and what they expect to gain from it.( Kecmanovic, 1969).  Positive attitudes are better than negative ones as negativity can bring on negative emotions that most of the time can be avoided. It is up to humans to make sure their attitudes positively reflect the behaviors they want to show. This can be done by assessing their attitudes and properly presenting them in society.

Definitely, attitude and behaviors are parts of culture. Change in attitude and behavior or belief or values require change in culture. Culture change is difficult. Culture change requires people to change their attitude and behaviors. It is often difficult for people to unlearn their old way of doing things, and to start performing the new behaviors consistently. However, it does not mean to say that culture cannot be changed; it can be changed if members of society are willing to change their attitude and behaviors, belief and values. A closer look at instinct driven behavior might help us understand this viewpoint better. For this, we can look at animal behavior, which is mostly controlled by instinct. In the case of humans, they can choose to ignore even such basic instincts, and put more thought and analysis in their behavior. They can also choose to do things in radically different ways. In this understanding, culture can be changed if people want to.

In relation to environmental problems, environmental problem is seen as behavioral problem because it is caused by human behavior. Thus, it is a cultural problem. Since problem is rooted in the culture that affects the attitude and behavior, then solving environmental problem requires changing of culture. Changing culture means changing the way how we view, value, perceive environment or nature. Negative culture toward environment must be changed into positive culture toward environment. Definitely it is an ethical issue. 

Solving Environmental Problems is A Cultural Perception Change.  

As I have mentioned earlier that environmental problems is caused by human behavior. Such human behavior is influenced by the culture which in turn affects the attitude of man on how they view environment and finally such view affects their behavior toward environment. Definitely the solution to the environmental problems must be radical change in cultural perceptions on the environment. Old ways of perceiving environment as merely instruments to human welfare must be revisited or changed. Without changing cultural perceptions, then no amount of laws that prohibits behavior, definitely environmental problems will continue.   

The researcher proposes the following recommendation on how to solve environmental problems:

1.      New way of interpreting the bible, Genesis, 1:27-31.    

It is time to say “mea culpa”. I say “mea culpa” directly means that I acknowledge I have done wrong and I have to confess that is my sin. My sins are that I have seen nature in its instrumental values, not in its intrinsic value. I have taken the genesis message as dominion, not as a steward.         

It has been the argument used by the Capitalists to justify their manipulation to the environment and it is originated from the Bible, particularly in the book of Genesis. Some philosopher’s views were also originated from bible. For example, Aristotle (Politics, Bk. 1, Ch. 8) maintains that “nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man” and that the value of nonhuman things in nature is merely instrumental. Generally, anthropocentric positions find it problematic to articulate what is wrong with the cruel treatment of nonhuman animals, except to the extent that such treatment may lead to bad consequences for human beings. Immanuel Kant (“Duties to Animals and Spirits”, in Lectures on Ethics), for instance, suggests that cruelty towards a dog might encourage a person to develop a character which would be desensitized to cruelty towards humans. From this standpoint, cruelty towards nonhuman animals would be instrumentally, rather than intrinsically, wrong. Likewise, anthropocentrism often recognizes some non-intrinsic wrongness of anthropogenic (i.e. human-caused) environmental devastation. Such destruction might damage the well-being of human beings now and in the future, since our well-being is essentially dependent on a sustainable environment ( Passmore 1974, Bookchin 1990, Norton, Hutchins, Stevens, and Maple (eds.) 1995).

 The destruction of environment would tell us that human beings have taken Gen 1; 27-31 as an instruction of an absolute power to use and misuse or to exploit when God tells us to have dominion over the animals and to fill the earth and subdue it. Such situation has been lamented by Pope Benedict XVI when he said that God’s original command to have dominion over the earth has been sorely corrupted. He further said that the task of “subduing” was never intended as an order to enslave it but rather as a task of being guardians of Creation and developing its gifts, of actively collaborating in God’s work ourselves (Benedict, 2008).

Previous Pope, John Paul in his Sollicitudo Rei Socialis reminds us about our understanding of the dominion granted by God. The dominion granted to man by God is not an absolute power or a complete freedom to use and misuse or to dispose of things as one pleases. The limitation imposed from the beginning by the Creator expressed symbolically by the prohibition “not to eat the fruit of the tree, for the day you eat of it, you will die (Gen. 2:17).

John Paul II (2001) continued to emphasize that our respect for creation stem from respect for human life and dignity. Thus all human beings should realize their specific responsibility to care for the nature. Each person should recognize that the world is created by God and we are steward of the nature. We must be responsible stewards of God’s creation. Humans are to use the earth, not to abuse it and in doing so become co-creators with God in the process of the formation of a new heaven and new earth. In Gen, 2: 15, it says, “Yahweh God took man and placed him in the Garden of Eden to till it and take care of it”. Such instruction indicates that dominion of human being over the earth is not absolute but co creator and stewards. 

2.      Adopting Eastern Views on Man and Nature.

Eastern philosophy of man views man not in isolation. Man is part of the greater reality. If the western look at man as individual who is independent from society or separate individual while the Eastern look at man as part of something greater.  He is a part of a bigger part. Living wisely means an individual finds his true place in that greater reality and conforms to it. He lives in harmonious relationship with the greater part or reality. The greater reality is not only referring to society or environment but the divine reality. He seeks to lose himself in that greater reality and such reality is divine reality which is called Brahman. Brahman is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe.  Brahman is sometimes referred to as the Absolute or Godhead which is the Divine Ground of all being. Brahman is the only thing which is truly real and everything else is only real to the extent that is part of Brahman.  Brahman is just like a great sea and other being in the world are just a drop of water into that sea. Such drops do not have distinct individual existence but exist as drops of water in a great sea. They are elements of something greater.  It is the reality of all realities, the soul of all souls, one without a second, the constant witness of the changing phenomena of the universe. (Swami Adiswarananda, 2012.)

Such view refers reality as God/ Brahman. This view found its partner in western view through Baruch Spinoza (Bento Spinoza, Baruch/Benedict Spinoza). He considered universe, nature as God. God is nature and nature is God.  Spinoza claims that the things that make up the universe, including human beings, are God's "modes". This means that we and everything else are, in some sense, dependent upon God and everything else are equal. All are coming from the same source and one is not better than the other. They all are good in themselves. As Spinoza puts it that  everything that happens follows from the nature of God, just like how it follows from the nature of a triangle that its angles are equal to two right angles. Since God had to exist with the nature he happens to have, nothing that has happened could have been avoided, and if a particular fate for a particular mode is fixed by God, there is no escaping it, (Geoff Pynn, 2012). 

 

Adopting such view on man and nature, it definitely tells us that man is not a subject and the world is object to be used but both subject. The relationship between man and nature must be between subject and subject. Nature and man are one. Man and nature are the modes of God's presence, and are dependent on God. Both are part of the greater reality which is Brahman. Both are part of God. In this case, man and nature are divine in nature because both are part of such greater reality which is Brahman. Man gets its meaning by living in harmony with such greater reality.  

3.      New Way of Building a Relationship with the Nature.

We might be familiar with the idea of Martin Buber. Martin Buber argued that all real living is meeting. In the meeting, there is always a relation and this relation is not only man to man but man to the world and to God.  How we can open ourselves to the world, to others and to God. Therefore he proposed a kind relationship which is I-You and I-It relationship. But one kind of these relationships is not really intended for one or the other. It depends on how we relate ourselves to others, to the world and to God.

I-You (Thou) or Ich-Du relationship. I - You (Thou) relationship is a relationship between man and man or subject to subject (Buber, 1965). This is a genuine relationship because the objective of such relationship is not for the advantage of one party but it is mutual. We deal with the other as a subject or a person who is distinctive.  Therefore, according to him, we take stand either to relate or not relate ourselves. We can take our place against whatever confronts us and address it as you or we can take ourselves apart from it and view it as an object (it). In this case, there is possibility that relationship (I-You)  which is supposed to be a genuine relationship and only between subject to subject or man to man can turn into a manipulative relationship which is I-It relationship. In this case the purpose of going into building relationship or dialogue is only for self interest.

While I-It relationships is a relationship between subject and object. But this relationship can be used in human relationship. In the I-It relationship, the subject is in the position to use, manipulate, and control the other. The other is used as an object. In this case one is being used by the other for his self-interest. There is no mutual benefit in this kind of relationship. In terms of relationship of man nature, it simply people accept that it is I-It relationship. Man is simply using the nature as object of manipulation for his self interest.  

New way of building relationship with nature must be a relationship of I-You. Nature must be seen as subject, as an independent and distinctive from human. Thus the relationship between man and nature must be a relation of subject to subject, both are equal. Not only that nature and man are both the creation of God but both relationships benefit each other. Nature benefits from man and man benefit from nature.  Therefore relationship with the nature must be mutual relationship. Man takes care of the nature as mandated by God and nature gives life to man. Man has to respect nature because the natural environment and/or its various contents have certain values in their own right so that these values ought to be respected and protected in any case. The manipulative relationship which only benefits one side can produce disaster on the part of human being.

4.      Nature should not be viewed as instrument or pure object.

 

Western philosophers have seen nature or environment as a separate entity from man. Unlike the Eastern philosophers view nature and human being as one. Both are pare part of greater reality. As a consequence of that concept, people maintain harmony and respect toward the environment. In this case, it emphasizes more on intrinsic value than instrumental value. People respect nature because they have their own value in themselves regardless of whether they are useful or not to other ends. Because the intrinsically valuable is that which is good as an end in itself, it is commonly agreed that something's possession of intrinsic value generates a prima facie direct moral duty on the part of moral agents to protect it or at least refrain from damaging it ( O'Neil 1992 and Jameson 2002 for detailed accounts of intrinsic value).

 As a consequence of Western views are looking at environment as an object to be used, to be manipulated for human interest.   The reflection of Western view of environment can be found in their literature on environmental ethics in which they emphasize the instrumental value of nature. Instrumental value of environment is the value of things as means to further some other ends. For instance, certain fruits have instrumental value for bats who feed on them, since feeding on the fruits is a means to survival for the bats. However, it is not widely agreed that fruits have value as ends in themselves (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008). Another example, a certain wild plant may have instrumental value because it provides the ingredients for some medicine or as an aesthetic object for human observers. Many traditional western ethical perspectives, however, are anthropocentric or human-centered in that either they assign intrinsic value to human beings alone (i.e., what we might call anthropocentric in a strong sense) or they assign a significantly greater amount of intrinsic value to human beings than to any nonhuman things such that the protection or promotion of human interests or well-being at the expense of nonhuman things turns out to be nearly always justified (i.e., what we might call anthropocentric in a weak sense) (Stanford Encyclopedia, 2008)

 

5. Consumerism.

The question is what is wrong with consumerism? Consumerism is a social and economic order that encourages the purchase of goods and services in ever-greater amounts. In economics consumerism refers to economic policies placing emphasis on consumption. In an abstract sense, it is the consideration that the free choice of consumers should strongly orient the choice what is produced and how. In many critical contexts, consumerism is used to describe the tendency of people to identify strongly with products or services they consume, especially those with commercial brand names and perceived status-symbolism appeal, e.g. luxury car designer clothing or expensive jewelry. Consumerism can take extreme forms such that consumers sacrifice significant time and income not only to purchase but also to actively support a certain firm or brand (Eisingerich, et.al, 2010). Definitely consumerism is good for the economy because economy is also depending on the consumption. The more people consume, the better the economy is. However, even though consumerism is not all bad but the effect of consumerism is great.  Consumerism can have a great impact to the environment. All raw materials are taken from the environment and all the waste of unused materials are going back to the    environment. The environment has to be destroyed in order to get the materials      through mining activities or logging activities and waste will be thrown back to the   environment. The immediate consequence is climate change. The ozone layer protects    day-by-day due to pollution like nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, particular matter and carbon monoxide. Apart from the depletion of ozone layer, these emissions    of gases also cause several health problems. Keeping a check on these emissions is the solution to protect the ozone layer (Raham Gafar, 2012). Definitely, to solve environmental problem is to change lifestyle which is part of culture.      

Conclusion

Environmental problem is actually a behavioral problem which is influenced by the existing culture. Definitely environmental problem is a cultural problem. Solving environmental disaster is not just a matter of introducing new laws on protecting environment but it is a change of culture which affects belief, attitude, values and behaviors of people. This is an area which environmentalists have not taken into consideration in their efforts to prevent environmental disasters. Thus, it is time to revisit the existing culture and old views on how people view environment or nature must be renewed or changed.      

References

Amstrong, W. Robert. The Relationship between Culture and Perception of Ethical Problems in International Marketing, Journal of Business Ethics (1996)

Volume: 15, Issue: 11, Pages: 1199-1208

Adiswarananda, Swami. 2012. HINDUISM: THE ULTIMATE REALITY. Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, New York.

Aristotle. 1948. Politics, trans. E. Barker, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Benedict XVI. 2008. Message of His Holiness to the Beloved People of Australia and to the Young Pilgrims Taking Part in World Youth Day. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/message/pont-messages/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20080704_australia_en.html.

Bookchin, M., 1980. Toward an Ecological Society, Montreal: Black Rose Books.

Buber, Martin. 1965. Daniel: Dialogues on Realization. London: Mcdonald. Ed. Nahum Glatzer. 

Eisingerich, Andreas B.; Bhardwaj, Gunjan; Miyamoto, Yoshio (April 2010). "Behold the Extreme Consumers and Learn to Embrace Them". Harvard Business Review 88

Ghaffa, Raham.. 2012. Environmental Problems and Solutions. http://envirocivil.com/environment/environmental-problems-and-solutions.

Geoff Pynn, 2012. Introduction to Pinoza's Ethics , Northern Illinois University. USA.

 

  Spilka, B., & McIntosh, D. N. (1996). The psychology of religion. Westview Press.

John Paul II. 2001. General Audience. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/2001/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_20010117_en.html.

Hunt, D. Shelly and. Vitell, J. Scott. 1986. The General Theory of Marketing Ethics:

A Revision and Three Questions.  http://sdh.ba.ttu.edu/JMacro06%20-%20A%20general%20theory%20of%20marketing%20ethics-A%20revision%20and%20three%20questions--PAGE%20PROOFS.pdf

 

Jamieson, D. 2002.  Morality's Progress: Essays on Humans, Other Animals, and the Rest of Nature, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Kant, Immanuel. 1963. “Duties to Animals and Spirits”, in Louis Infield trans., Lectures on Ethics, New York: Harper and Row.

KECMANOVIC, D. (1969). The paranoid attitude as the common form of social behavior. Sociologija, 11(4), 573-585. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/60877639?accountid=12347 (registration required)

"'Nones' on the Rise: One-in-Five Adults Have No Religious Affiliation". Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. October 9, 2012. Retrieved December 20, 2012. http://www.pewforum.com

Norton, B., Hutchins, M., Stevens, E. and Maple, T. L. (eds), 1995. Ethics on the Ark, Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

O'Neill, J., 1992. “The Varieties of Intrinsic Value”, Monist 75: 119-137

Passmore, J., 1974. Man's Responsibility for Nature, London: Duckworth, 2nd ed., 1980.

Racelis, A. Racelis. 2009. Relationship between Employee Perceptions of Corporate Ethics and Organizational Culture: An Exploratory Study. College of Business Administration, University of the Philippines, Philippines. http://apmr.management.ncku.edu.tw/comm/updown/DW1006213442.pdf

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2008. Environmental Ethics.  First published Mon Jun 3, 2002; substantive revision Thu Jan 3, 2008

Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345.

Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. McGraw-Hill Book Company

WYER, R. S. J. 1965 . Effect of Child-Rearing Attitudes and Behavior on Children’s  responses to Hypothetical Social Situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(4), 480-486.

Tylor, E.B. 1874. Primitive culture: researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, art, and custom.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture

 

Geoff Pynn, 2012. Introduction to Pinoza's Ethics , Northern Illinois University. USA.

 

 

 

 

 

Universal Business Ethics: A challenge to multinational companies.

Fr. Damianus Abun, SVD, MBA, PhD, Divine Word College of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, Philippines

Abstract

Ethic is a code of conduct put forward by society that is accepted by all rational adult individual beyond the boundary of country or culture or religion. Thus ethics is   universal, not relative. What is good and bad, what is right and wrong in one country or culture is also the same accepted by other countries or cultures as good or bad, right and wrong act. The same true with business ethics. Business ethics is universal, not relative. What is wrong and right, good or bad in one country is accepted as wrong and right, good or bad in other countries. Fraud is bad and that is applicable to all beyond cultures or countries. Thus multinational companies have to find common ethical ground that is accepted by all rational agent and business practitioners around the globe.

Key words: universal ethics, universal business ethics, descriptive and normative ethics.   

Introduction 

Discussing ethics is always relevant because it is about how human relates himself/herself to other fellow human, society, and environment. Thus, ethics concerns the human code of conduct on how he/she relates himself/herself to others, society and environment. Such relationship includes business transactions. In this case, how business will relate and treat their customers, their society and environment. It is their social responsibility. Thus, business can not ignore the importance of code of conduct that regulates their behavior in dealing with their customer, society and environment. Such code of conduct is not only related to local or national business but also international business particularly multinational companies.

The paper will put forward the foundation of such universal business ethics. The argument is that if morality is universal, it cannot be that business ethics is not universal. Therefore, the challenge of multinational companies is to find a common ethical ground in their business practices around the globe. Stealing or cheating can not be considered “good” in one country and it is bad for other countries or killing can not be considered good in one country and other countries are considered bad.  Fraud cannot be called “good” in one culture and it is bad in other culture.     

What is ethics?

The writer uses the term ethics and morality interchangeably. Morality means the same thing with ethics.  Morality (from Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") refers to a code of conduct, by which human beings regulate their lives, their actions in dealing with others and the environment around him. Theoretical interest in morality arises from the distinct sorts of questions that might be asked about this code of conduct (Anscombe, .1958).

As a code of conduct, ethics covers the whole human lives and his surroundings which include the relationship of man and his /her fellow man, his society, other sentient being, and his natural environment.  The question of what is right and wrong, what is good and bad will always be the code to be adhered to in relation to those four areas. Answering such question one might try to describe what kind of practical rules that govern human life and his/her relationship with his fellow man, society, sentient being and his environment. Such inquiry may lead to a descriptive sense of morality which is an attempt to understand the actual practices of different groups, society and individuals.

Descriptive morality may be defined as a code of conduct endorsed and adhered to by a society, group or—much less frequently—individual. Moral codes in this sense will, therefore, differ both from society to society, within societies, and amongst individuals (Hume, 1975). In such scenario morality is relative. Because of its relativity, the “ought to” of its application can not be applied everywhere beyond certain group and even among individuals and thus no common standards to be followed. The “ought to” is becoming relative. Such “ought to or should” is applied only to a certain group or culture or individual. Thus, there is no consistency of moral rules applied to all rational being in a society. Historically speaking, different moral rules were held to apply to slave and free men and women in societies in which slave owning was permitted.   

Living in such kind of morality, people can raise question on the validity of those codes of conduct. People would like to be in harmony with other people, society and not to be misunderstood and would like to be in harmony with his environment. Therefore, the question here is what people ought to use as guidance in their conduct when they are relating to his/her fellow men, society and his environment. The result of such question constitutes the meaning of morality in its normative sense.

Normative morality may be defined as a code of conduct that would be accepted by all rational people under certain idealized conditions. In simpler terms, "morality" is the set of correct moral principles, which, though they probably will never be universally adopted, ought to be adopted (Frankena, 1973). Thus the job of moral philosophy is to firstly formulate a set of principles with which all rational agents ought to comply, and secondly, to explain why this system ought to be adopted. There is considerable philosophical disagreement as to what this universal system of morality would look like. Within this understanding, there must be universal principle or code of conduct which can be accepted by all rational agents. In that sense, one act can be judged right or wrong or good or bad if it is accepted by all moral beings. Thus the application is beyond culture or group or individual. This concept, even though many disagree with it, can bring some harmony and common understanding to the application of some ethical principles.   

The question on the objectivity may be raised. The question would be how objective those conducts are as guide for human conducts or are they just expressions of human feelings of human beings?  Such question would lead to the universal validity of those codes of conducts. Such universality must be the base of ethics, in the sense that what is practiced by a certain group or individuals must be accepted by all rational and moral being under the same circumstance if it is to be considered moral. Therefore, its question on the objectivity will be depending on its acceptance by all rational agents.

Business Ethics 

Ethics is the field of philosophy that studies systems, norms, and values that distinguish between what is good and bad or right and wrong in doing business. The field of business ethics focuses on examining conduct and policies and promoting appropriate conduct and policies within the context of commercial enterprise, both at the individual and the organizational level. Consequently, a central question of business ethics is "How do businesses determine what is appropriate or ethical conduct for any given commercial task?" Business ethics covers all levels of business activity, including the obligations and responsibilities of businesses to customers, employees, other businesses, national and multinational governments, and the environment (Velasquez, 1998).

Clearly business ethics is a specialized study of moral right and wrong in doing a business. The scope covers all the operation of business. It focuses on moral standards as they apply to business policy, institutions (corporations) and individuals. Thus issues covered by business ethics are systemic, corporate, and individual.  Systemic issue in business ethics are ethical questions rose about the economic, political, legal and social system within which the business operates. This include question about the morality of capitalism or of the laws, regulations, industrial structures and social practices within the country operates. While corporate issues in business ethics are ethical questions about morality of the activities, policies, practices of an individual company.  In relation to individual issues, business ethics are ethical questions raised about a particular individual within a company. This includes the morality of a decision, actions or character of an individual who is doing business. Those issues have to be evaluated ethically if their system, corporate practices and policies and individual activities observe ethical standards.   

Since issues covered by business ethics are systemic, corporate and individual, thus the application of business ethics is corporations and individuals. Corporation and individuals are morally responsible for any moral violations in the corporation. Therefore, a corporation may be called immoral if members of the organization collectively, freely and knowingly pursue immoral objectives. Corporate organizations and their acts depend on choices and actions of human individuals. Thus individuals are seen as primary bearers of moral duties and responsibilities. Individuals are responsible for what the corporation does. However, human acts are also influenced by corporate policies, structure and practices. Thus, moral responsibilities are on corporation and individuals and they are to be blamed.    

The application of business ethics is beyond domestic corporations and individuals, it also applies to multinational corporations.  Multinational corporations should also apply moral standards. The issues to be covered are the same as domestic corporations such as systemic, corporate and individuals. Thus, they must determine which systems are ethically appropriate for a given country and for the owner. The choice here is: will the business practices favour the host country or its owner’s interest. However, bear in mind that the question of ethics is not a matter of favour or not favour; it is a matter of right and wrong, good or bad for any parties in the transactions. Thus ethical balance between economic need and interest of the business owner and the interest of the host country and society as a whole are taken into considerations.  After identifying the demand of the host country, they can determine whether to go along with the many conflicting and morally questionable demand or risk losing their investment. Within those conflicting circumstances, investors may choose either morality or their business interest. Such choices are with certain consequences. Prioritizing business interest means ignoring the moral issues for the sake of short term profit but it means losing customers in the long run.. Prioritizing moral issues means doing what is good and bad, right and wrong in doing business related to customer, society and environment or in other words, its social responsibility can improve the image of the company, even if short term profit is reduced. The challenge would be how to strike the balance between the parties that one would not be sacrifice for the sake of one.    

Discussing on the ethical aspect of business, naturally it will tell us that the centre of business attention is not merely profit but also its social responsibilities. Its social responsibilities require business to see its purpose beyond profit which is its concern to the society, to the customers and environment. Thus the real purpose of business is service for the society, for the customers, for the environment and making profit for the owner. However profits come after doing a good service.  Keeping balance between its social responsibilities and profit will lead to ethical business.  Thus the modern idea of business is against the view of Friedman, the father of Capitalism.  Milton Friedman (1912) advocates the classical theory of business, which essentially holds that businesses should be solely devoted to increasing profits as long as they engage in open and free competition devoid of fraud. Managers and employees, then, have a responsibility to serve the company they work for by striving to make money for it. The very act of seeking profits is, according to Friedman, a moral act. An extreme example relates his point: If a person invested all of his or her savings into a venture and then the company gave away the money to the homeless, would that be ethical? No, proffers the classical theory, because the investor gave the money to the company in good faith for the purpose of earning a profit. (Freeman, 1991).

Clearly Friedman looked at profit as the sole objective of business. He argued that corporate officers have no obligation to support such social causes as hiring hard-core employed to reduce poverty or reducing pollution beyond mandated by law. Their sole task is to maximize profits for the company subject to the limits of law and rules of the game that ensure open and free competition without deception and fraud (Hooker, 2003). For Friedman, as long as it operates within the bound of law, no deception and fraud, it is alright. Social concern and environment are not going to be the concern and to limit the movement of business. Capital and free market is the rule of the game.         

Business Ethic is not against Business

Some argued that in the perfectly competitive free market, the pursuit of profit will by itself ensure that the members of the society are served in the most socially beneficial ways. They further argue that corporate managers have no right to do anything other than maximize profit. They have no rights to spend other people’s money on social welfare projects. Business owners can spend their money in a way they want, since it is their money. If they contribute money to social development, it must be with the eye to increasing profit. By doing so, the company’s image improve and attract more customers and make more money.  Such argument assumes that any steps taken to increase profits will necessarily be socially beneficial for people (Hooker, 2003).

Looking for profit and ignoring social responsibility is definitely self-interest. Self interest is the main motivation of going into business and making profit as it has been emphasized by Friedman. Such attitude is nothing new. It has been long argued that human beings act from self-interest. It has long been the dominant view in psychology and in much of Western thought. Thomas Hobbes, the seventeenth century philosopher, believed that human beings always acted from self-interest. On one occasion Hobbes was seen giving money to a beggar. When asked why, he explained that he was trying to relieve his own discomfort at seeing the beggar in need (.Andre & Velasquez, 2011)

Ethics as traditionally conceived is supposed to override self-interest: if we have a moral obligation to do something, we ought to do it even when it's not in our own interests to do so. It makes no sense, however, to tell people that they ought to act contrary to self-interest if they can act only in terms of self-interest. Moreover, an important traditional element in ethical decision-making is an impartial consideration of the interests of others. The moral point of view goes beyond self-interest to a standpoint that takes everyone's interests into account. Ethics, then, assumes that self interest is not the basis for all human behaviour, although some philosophers, e.g., Hobbes, have tried to base ethics on self-interest. Their efforts, however, have not been widely accepted. While egoism may be a strong motivator of human behaviour, ethics traditionally assumes that human beings are also capable of acting from a concern for others that is not derived from a concern for their own welfare (Velasquez, 2011).

Other group also argued that to be ethical is enough to obey the law. In their mind, ethics and law are the same. It is true that some laws requires behaviours that is the same as the behaviour required by moral standards such as laws that prohibits murder, rape, theft, fraud and so on. In such case, law coincides with moral laws. However, laws and morality do not always coincide. Some laws have nothing to do with morality and even violate moral values. What is moral is not always legal and what is legal is not always moral. In this case, business is not enough just to follow the law but also moral considerations.  

Since ethics is to govern all voluntary human activities, and since business is a voluntary human activity, thus, business ethics should also govern the business. No business exists without ethics. Business bankrupts if business does not adhere to moral standards. What will happen if cheating, stealing, fraud, bribery is allowed? Cheating, stealing, fraud has been contributing to the bankruptcy of several big businesses.  Ethical business conduct contributes to profits. If the business is doing good and honest service to customer, people will patronize the product and service and profit will come.

Business is service to the humanity. If business is considered to be so, it has to be conducted in ethical manner. If the purpose is noble, then the way how it is done must be noble too. Business that conducts its transaction ethically will stay long in the business and can increase share holder value in return. Let me quote the statement of CEO Dan Amos (2009) of AFLAC, A Pay For Performance Company,

“We are proud to have been included in the Ethisphere’s list of the World’s Most Ethical Companies for two years. We are uplifted to see that the Reputation Institute judged Aflac to be the most respected company in the global insurance industry in 2008. We have earned several “best places to work” honours as well. The independent validations have been inspirational, and we are equally proud to have further demonstrated that a company may increase shareholder value returns at the same time it earns a desirable image as an ethical business practice leader”.   

Ethic is Universal. 

Universal morality argue that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applied universally that is, for "all similarly situated individuals" regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, gender or other distinguishing feature (Kant, and Herbert James 1981). Moral universalism is opposed to moral nihilism and moral relativism.

Universal morality is always contrary to moral relativism. If the relativism morality claims that morality is individual and cultural dependence but universal morality is not individual and cultural independent, it applies to all rational human beings and beyond culture. The application of the universal morality would be: if an action is right or wrong for others, it is also right or wrong for us”“If something is rights for you and if it is wrong for you, then it is right or wrong for me”. Within this concept, all rational being has the same concept of what is good and bad, right and wrong and thus it is easier to judge other people’s behaviour and other culture (Abun, 2010)

Universal morality is taken from its normative sense of morality. When morality is taken from its normative sense, then it is possible that morality in its normative sense has never been put forward by any particular society or group or individuals. All rational adult individual adult have the capability to know what is good and bad, what is right and wrong. Such kind of morality is known to all because all rational adult individual have the reason and conscience to know what is good and bad, right and wrong. Thus judging behaviour is based on natural law. Natural law is as strong as and binding as physical law such as gravity and energy (Hauser, 2006).Each person has the capacity to know what is good and bad, right and wrong.  

Natural law does not depend on our interpretation or feelings but they exist independently. Rape is wrong regardless the intention and outcome behind it. It does not matter how angry we are, it is inherently wrong. Rape cannot be argued as right and wrong depend on certain circumstances or cultural aspects. The truth is that rape is wrong. The truth cannot have it both ways, truth can only be one. Truth has and never will change. Our opinion is not the truth; our status does not give us the truth, truth is the truth and exist independently. Morality must be based on absolute truth, not relative truth. Relative truth will tell us that an act is relative to the context, situation, culture and the person. It comes down to two opinions. A person may judge rape as wrong or immoral but others may judge it as moral and a person cannot impose a moral judgment on others. Thus, how are they going to reconcile? It is only when they admit that there is a natural law, one which is above personal opinion and beliefs, one which is unchanging, can they claim that an action morally right or wrong (Abun, 2010).

According to universalists, morals are inherent in the law of nature, the nature of humanity. They regard actions as inherently or inarguably moral or immoral. It does not need other person to tell someone that certain act is immoral or moral because from the act alone can be judged whether it is immoral or moral and all adult rational moral agent know whether it is moral or immoral. Moral universalists might be, for example, judge slavery, death penalty or rape to be absolutely and inarguably immoral regardless of the beliefs and goals of a culture that engage in this practices. Thus, an action can be judged either good or bad, right or wrong, it cannot be both ways, regardless of the circumstances in which they occur.

The advantages of universal morality is that it assures us of certainty, security, harmony  and protection. The position of one or a group embodies that truth. Within these moral standards, all persons, society beyond boundaries of culture can be one and judge actions against humanity as immoral. Thus, all people across culture can condemn certain act if it is moral or immoral. Morality which is based on natural law is not determined by outside forces, but it coming from within a person (LaFollette, 1991).

Thus when we talk about universal morality, then it means we have a moral system that applies to all advanced civilizations in the universe. They are basic principles that would apply to every individual member and every sub-group of every rational agent and advanced civilization in the universe.

Business Ethics is Universal.

Follow the argument of universal morality that morality is beyond boundaries, morality is applied to all rational agents, and thus we can say the same to business ethics. The principles of right and wrong and good and bad cannot be just applied to a certain culture, race, religion or individual but it is applied to all. The understanding of good and bad, right and wrong cannot be just applicable to one place, to a certain person or culture but it is inherent in human nature through reason and conscience that all adult person are capable of understanding of what good, bad, right and wrong are. The application of those concepts is for all human act including business transactions.  Thus, business practices must follow a certain common business ethics principle. Universal business ethic is an attempt to formulate common business ethic principles that are acceptable by all rational agents and applied to all countries beyond religion, culture, and race.

There are universal moral values that are applied everywhere in human relationships beyond culture, group, religion and individuals. These universal moral values are applied in business transactions. Lying, cheating, bribing, unfairness, injustice, dishonesty are immoral. Whether or not they are observed or enforced, these values hold good everywhere including in business transactions (Machan, 1999).    

Thus, the primary ethical concerns of businesses fell into four categories: equity, rights, honesty, and the exercise of corporate power, each of which is addressed below (Harvard Business Review, 1986) .

Equity—referring to general fairness—includes transactions that benefit both parties, not only for one party. Beyond that, fairness refers to the effect of business transaction outside of the parties involved which include society as a whole and environment. The ethical question here is: is the transaction fair to parties, the society and the environment?   

The same true with the theory of rights. The theory of rights covers entitlements of business partner, customers, communities, and other parties as established by laws, court rulings, and social conventions. Rights generally protect these various parties from activities by businesses that can limit their freedom and safety.  While honesty, the broadest category, refers to the truthfulness and integrity of businesses' actions and policies, including corporate conduct as well as employee conducts done in the name of the company. Furthermore, issues of honesty pertain to advertising content, financial procedures, bribes and gifts, fraud, and wastefulness. In addition, honesty also includes employee obligations, such as not disclosing confidential information to a company's competitors. 

The key issue surrounding exercise of corporate power is whether companies ethically can fund and support certain political action committees whose efforts may benefit their businesses but cause social harm. This category also covers worker, product, and environmental safety concerns and raises questions about employers' responsibilities for workplace equipment that may cause injuries after prolonged use, products that may harm consumers, and conduct and products that may contaminate the environment.

The challenge for multinational companies is how to formulate universal business ethics that are acceptable by all beyond country, religion, culture, gender, race or ethnicity.  Just like universal morality, business must have common moral principles that should be applied everywhere. By holding a common universal moral principle, business practices or transactions can avoid practices that are harmful to parties, society and environment. Beyond that, business transactions can be easier and faster. 

Conclusion

Ethics is a code of conduct put forward by society that is accepted by all rational being beyond the boundary of country, culture, religion, race and groups or individual. The concept of what good and bad is beyond culture, country, religion or groups. Thus ethics is universal, not relative. What is good in one country or culture, it must be accepted as the same in other countries. The acceptance is not depending on the rules of the society but by reason and conscience inherent in the person. It is believed that all rational adult individual have the capability to define and understand what good and bad is. Stealing is bad or killing is bad. They are bad not because someone told me that they are bad but I understand that they are bad by my own reason and conscience.    

Such ethics is not only applied in ordinary human relations but it has to be applied in business transaction which is called business ethics. Business ethics is a specialized study of moral right and wrong in doing a business. The scope covers all the operation of business. It covers its business policy, corporation and individual. In that case, issues to be addressed are systemic issues, corporate and individual issues. Those issues are not only in the local business level but it also includes international business or multinational corporations. The concept of good and bad, right and wrong that are applied in the local business must be applied in the international business too. Thus business ethics is universal, just like ethics.  The challenge of multinational companies is to apply the same code of conduct across the border. Fraud cannot be good Africa but it is bad in America or vice versa.

References

Abun, Damianus. 2010. Moral Relativism, Universalism/Absolutism and the Teaching of the Catholic Church on Morality. AERA Research Journal

ISSN: 2094-5337 Volume: 1 Issue: 1, 2010. http://www.aerassociation.com

Anscombe, G.E.M. 1958. Modern Moral Philosophy. New York: The Bobs-Merrill Company, 1958.

Claire, Andre & Manuel Velasquez. 2011. Unmasking the Motives of the Good Samaritan. Santa Clara University. http://www.scu.edu/

Frankena, William K. 1973. Ethics, 2nd edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Freeman, Edward R., ed. 1991. Business Ethics: The State of the Art. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hume, D. 1975. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. In Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals. Edited by L.A. Selby-Bigge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Harvard Business Review. 1986. The Business of Ethics and the Ethics of Business. Boston: Harvard College.

Hauser, Marc. 2006. Moral Mind: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong. Happer Collins: New York.

Hooker, John. 2003. Why Business Ethics. Carnegie Mellon University. http://web.tepper.cmu.edu/ethics/whybizethics.pdf

Kant, I. and Herbert James Paton. 1981. The Moral Law: Kant's Groundwork of    theMetaphysics of Morals. London: Hutchinson.

Larry Colero, 2010. A Framework For Universal Principles of Ethics. Crossroads Programs Inc. http://www.ethics.ubc.ca/papers/invited/colero.html

LaFollette, Hugh. 1991. The Truth of Ethical Relativism: Journal of Social Philosophy: New York University

Machan, R. Tibor. 1999. The Universal Principles of Business Ethics. Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University

Rachels, James. 1993. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Velasquez, G. Manuel. 1998. Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, Fourth edition. Singapore: Prentice-Hall Inc.