Morality Lessons from
the VW Diesel Emission Scandal
When you were a child,
your parents told you it’s not nice to tell lies. And if you were caught
cheating, you were duly punished.
They followed one of
three mainstream moral theories, all of which condemn cheating. The
Consequentialist (or Utilitarian) argues that the results of cheating are
usually bad, and therefore cheating should be condemned. The Deontological (or
Kantian) argues that permitting the cheating of one allows everyone else to
cheat, and before long no one can believe anyone. The third theory, Virtue
Ethics (Aristotle), suggests that virtuous people don’t cheat; when they do,
it’s a character flaw that should be excised.
How is this applied in
the business world? Given the consensus among traditional moral frameworks, is
cheating condemned and punished? Every School of Business worth its salt has at
least one mandatory requirement of a Business Ethics course.
Legally speaking, the
impact of these theories is apparent. Fraud is punishable by law. If you aren’t
sure how far the arm of the law extends, take note of reports that about $251
billion in fines was paid by fraudulent banks alone since the Great Recession (Forbes 8/29/14). Deliberate or
manipulative, those “too big to fail” had a hand in bringing about the financial
crisis and they were found guilty in courts of law or settled out of court
(without admitting guilt) for billions of dollars.
Cynics may say that
this was the banks’ “cost of doing business,” while less sanguine response is
that they were found to have cheated their customers, their mortgage clients,
and all the regulatory boards that were supposed to police their activities.
As we are witnessing
lately the attack on the independent media (mainstream, extreme, print,
television, and Internet), questions of “lying” or “fake news” have been front
and center in claiming that media outlets have become the “oppositional party.”
Cheating, lying, and
the standards by which they should be judged have been political fodder for any
pundit invited to a talk show (“left” and “right”). Was there deliberate lying
or “mere” choice of selective data? Is it “simply” a question of perspective?
Media control is a classic fascist trope.
Presumably in the
business world the stakes are different compared to those associated with
“Lying Crooked Hillary” or “Cheating Ted Cruz.” Political mud-slinging is as
old as our republic, but is the same true of business? Is capitalism based on
cheating?
Unlike our judgment
about businesspeople, we are quick to agree that we can never trust a
politician, and therefore only outsiders (like Donald Trump) deserve our votes.
Professional politicians say whatever they are paid to say, and they will
change their minds regardless of promises made to constituents. This sentiment
brought to power our 45th President.
So, why aren’t we
using the same moral outrage when it gets to the business world? Is it because
we (cynically or realistically) know that the only purpose of a firm is to make
a profit no matter what (moral or practical) corners it cuts, as VW has done in
manipulating its diesel emission controls?
William Boston reports
that “Sales of the VW brand . . . rose 2.8% world-wide to 5.9 million vehicles,
driven by 14% growth in new car sales in China and nearly 7% growth in Central
and Eastern Europe.” He continues, “Volkswagen shares were up 3.8%.” And all of
this after the “diesel scandal” (Market
Watch, 1/9/17).
Where is the inner
moralist in each of us that is willing to punish all cheaters, even put them
out of business? Brittney Cooper, in an alarming headline, argues that “The Powerless Get Punished for Cheating, and the Powerful Benefit” (New York Times, 9/29/15) Shocking?
Perhaps we subconsciously
admire their clever engineers.
VW is obviously “powerful” and its financial reach
extends the entire globe. Paying some $19 billion in fines is similar to the
banks’ “cost of doing business” in this country, a fee or fine worth paying if
caught by snoopy regulators.
Morally speaking, there is an equivalence in all moral violations
regardless if they occur in the political or economic domains. Cheating remains
cheating no matter who commits the act (and against whom), and bad behavior
should be punished no matter how rich or powerful the villain.
Are the same people who punished Hillary Clinton not
willing to punish VW? Is it because psychologically it’s easier to vilify a
person than a corporation? But if the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United (2010) claimed freedom
of speech rights to corporation as persons, why not apply the same logic?
On a good day morality and legality are based on logical
arguments, and emotional outburst are best left outside of reasonable judgments.
Raphael
Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous
articles at sassower.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment