This writing is occasioned by an article on business ethics published by a professor of Harvard School of Business. It's about what it means to be ethical in a business world where "honesty is the best policy" is not totally uphold because of the more compelling reasons that cheats are not punished, cannot be punished, punishment comes late or very least, if not cheats are even rewarded for their wrongdoing. The article mentions about factors that are meant to enforce ethical standards in doing business, like the concern for reputation or good name (majority of businesspeople will still prefer to be reputable than have profit) or the consideration of power (do me wrong, and I will not do business with you anymore); nonetheless, these factors do not seem to be enough to accomplish their task.
Of course, one just needs to read the daily papers or watch news over the television to know that in business, as in other "departments" of life, cheating seems to have become the rule. To date, the milk and other dairy products that are tainted by melamine, an industrial component, from China highlights unethical business practice. This chemical for making plastic is mixed with milk to project an appearance that the product has lots of protein. This business scandal, especially if the number of affected babies is considered, is in itself appalling. But, as if the injury still begs for insult, there was also a news report that an attempt to assemble a class suit against the culprits was muzzled by a concerted effort to instill fear among the lawyers who were prospected to fight for the rights of the victims.
See, cheating is attempted to be covered by "another form of cheating..." Given this "rule" in the business world (as -- already indicated in the preceding -- in life), to fight for morality is all the more a daunting task.
But to me one also needs to consider "thinking out of the box." Our ethical schooling has been very much limited to the consideration of the extreme poles of good, on the one hand, and bad, on the other hand. But, of course, we knew that life is not black-and-white; and between the polarities of good and bad are so many shades of gray.
Now, the discipline of ethics has more than adequately taught us to with ease and confidence distinguish human acts into positive or negative. But how shall we label the "grays"? How shall we pass ethical judgment on the grays? Can we even recognize an instance of gray shade -- that which is neither good nor bad?
The article that I refer to at the inception of this writing provides an example by talking about a realistic approach in making sense out of the seeming triumph of the cheats. The author says should one devote all his time going after the cheats, then he's self-defeating. That means, he will not end up a sure loser. Thus, what one could do is simply to celebrate each and every instance of good that one finds in the world. A mere celebration? At least, one celebrates because ethics is still far from being passe.
The author admits that this could appear or seem like an unprincipled stance. But, being principled does not mean taking the hardline.
