PHIL 352
Dr. David Lutz
Misael Cortez
2-23-14
A Criticism of Peter F. Ducker’s View of Ethics
In contemporary thought, it is ethically accepted that the individual or the organization
has a natural tendency to pursue that which will bring some benefit. In this natural tendency to
attain a gain, nevertheless, resides the necessity of a collectivity, for a gain cannot be claimed in
the absence of a collectivity. That is, in a situation where only one person exists, this person
cannot claim to have attained a gain (the person may claim that he/she has more or less than
previously but this would rather be a change of fortune or of self-effort) simply because there is
no reference with which to contrast this gain. In order for a person to gain, that person has to be
interacting with others, namely a society. It is only in a social condition that persons are, by
natural ordinance, able to make choices that lead to a gain, and these choices consequently affect
others. It is here where issues of ethics arise. Ethical questions cannot be responded too easily,
but perhaps the place to look for answers is in the root cause of human collectivity and this
collectivity’s natural connections.
Peter F. Drucker in his article titled “What is “business ethics”?” tries to find correct
answers to the questions of ethics by analyzing three philosophies, namely Casuistry ethics,
Prudence ethics, and Confucian ethics of interdependence. He correctly labels Casuistry ethics as
the tool to make ethics relative to situations.1 He also distinguishes correctly that Confucian
philosophy truly explains precepts of ethics. He incorrectly, however, interprets Aristotelian
ethics, for his criticism that Prudence ethics (reliance on self-fulfillment), does not account for
the whole of Aristotle’s “virtue ethics.” Aristotle’s theory of happiness, which is that of the
Peter F. Drucker, “What is “business ethics”?” The Public Interest, 26
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20080708_1981632whatisbusinessethicspeterfdrucker.pdf
1
virtuous man, ought to be equated (at a level of Truth where only a few philosophies intersect)
with that of the Confucian ethics of interdependence and vice versa, given that these two
philosophies equally answer the ethical questions that arise from human collectivity.
In the words of Drucker,
The example [Henry VIII’s annulment of his marriage2] illustrates what is wrong
with casuistry and indeed why it must fail as an approach to ethics. In the first
place casuistry must end up becoming politicized, precisely because it considers
social responsibility an ethical absolute…. It then concludes that “rulers” must,
therefore, in conscience and ethics, subordinate their interests, including their
individual morality, to their social responsibility.
Drucker correctly sees that this type of ethics quickly become a tool for the justification of
unethical conduct. Henry VIII’s case exemplifies how the politician must sacrifice Truth in order
to satisfy it’s constituents’ interests; otherwise he or she stands fewer chances at ruling. Most, if
not all, of the world’s societies are guilty of this by means of generating bubbles that protect
some and exclude others. Indeed, the failure of casuistry ethics rests in what Drucker identifies
as cynical conduct; “an ambassador is an honest man, lying abroad for the good of his country.”3
Aside from this correct distinction, Drucker also correctly suggests that Confucian ethics
succeeds as an ethical theory because it sidesteps the trap in which Casuistry falls. He claims that
is does so because in the Confucian ethics, the rules are the same for all – superior and
subordinate.4 This precept of interdependence, in which the actions of a politician are no less
under the grip of ethics than those of the peasant, truly responds to the question of ethics. For
He previously used England’s Henry VIII’s annulment of his marriage with Catherine of Argon
to show Casuistry in operation. The annulment was necessary to enable Henry to marry a
different woman, who could conceive him a son and thus have an heir that will protect England’s
people. The annulment dilemma contrasted the well being of a nation against the loyalty to
religious principles. Because the decision was done on the basis of an interest to preserve a
majority at the expense of breaking the “ethical code,” this decision was either a mere utilitarian
approach to ethics, or this decision proved that the Catholic precept of marriage is flawed.
3
Drucker, “What is “business ethics”?”, 26
4
Drucker, “What is “business ethics”?”, 30
2
example in a scenario where a corporation that employs twenty people and where this
corporation, by means of its operations, empties a harmful contaminant to the nearby river that
happens to be the water supply for a community of thousands further down the stream, the
employee as much as the manager of the corporation have an ethical bound to stop this
corporation’s operations. The question of whether to make the choice between remaining silence
and operating in order to preserve the jobs of the twenty employees at the expense of harming
the neighboring community or whether to terminate the twenty employments in order to avoid
harming this community is totally irrelevant to interdependence ethics. The act of knowingly
contaminating the river is intrinsically unethical because it disturbs the environment, which due
to everything’s interconnectedness, ends up harming everyone in the long run. Because the
follower of interdependence ethics understands that everything that exists is interconnected, he
or she knows that all actions have an effect on the entirety of that which exists. And it is this
awareness that is the precept that equally commands the employee and the manager of the
corporation to stop operations, not because the lives of thousands of people are more important
than twenty, but because the act of contaminating the river is intrinsically unethical. In this form,
interdependence ethics avoids narrow self-interested dilemmas and brings the conversation to a
level where awareness of interdependence is the precept for harmonious or ethical actions.
Drucker incorrectly interprets Aristotelian ethics, however. With his shortsighted
analysis of the virtue of Prudence, he attempts to demonstrate why this approach is insufficient
for an ethical theory. He labels Prudence ethics as easily degenerative because it emphasizes a
sort of self-discipline through which the person evades that which is unjustifiable and opts for
that which is justifiable. As a result of this, appearances may become more important than
substances, he sustains.5 This is a misrepresentation of Aristotelian ethics. In order to do justice
to Aristotelian ethics, one must review what its source said in this regard. Aristotle, in his
Nicomachean Ethics, Book I, translated by W. D. Ross states that:
The function of man is… to be a certain kind of life, and this to be an activity or
actions of the soul implying a rational principle, and the function of a good man to
be the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well performed
when it is performed in accordance with the appropriate excellence: if this is the
case, human good turns out to be activity of the soul in accordance with virtue.6
So far the good is the result of actions that are in accordance with virtue. This is, perhaps, the
key piece of Aristotelian ethics; for it communicates that the good action results solely from
virtue. As defined by Aristotle himself, “virtue is a kind of mean since… it aims at what is
intermediate.”7 Aristotle derives this definition of virtue form his previous demonstrations that
when choosing or taking action, humans have to strive for a mean between two extremes. In
order to practice Courage, Justice, Prudence, and Temperance, one has to strive to tailor one’s
actions in such a way that avoids excess or deficiency. But this is just another way of
demonstrating that the social being ought to strive for an equilibrium, which equates to a state of
harmony in the pure sense of natural ordinance. For where there exists a disequilibrium it is said
that harmony is absent, and this is not what the social being desires. Now, to say that something
is in harmony is to say that the components that generate this harmony are aware of each other,
which, in turn, is indicative of their awareness of their interdependence. Just as in the case of a
mechanized system, each component is aware of the others by means of their assertion of a force,
and this resulting in the functioning of the system – a harmony indeed – so does Aristotle’s
virtuous man (virtue ethics) knows the role and the significance of himself and of each of the
Drucker, “What is “business ethics”?”, 27-28
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book I, trans. W.D. Ross,
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html
7 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book II, trans. W.D. Ross
5
6
other man and their relationship with the environment, and this resulting in a social function of
some kind, and this being what is known as proper social interactions – a harmony indeed. Both
Aristotelian virtue ethics and Confucian ethics of interdependence are difficult to distinguish and
even more so to practice them, for those who are able practice them risk or end up losing their
lives. Socrates, Christ, the Christian martyrs, and a handful of others that might have gone
unnoticed or that escape the grasp of this analysis are examples of this. Confucian ethics of
interdependence and Aristotelian virtue ethics not only intersect at this level of understanding,
but the two merge and do not diverge again as to arrive at the same Truth together.
Thus to return to the question of the individual’s or the organization’s natural tendency to
attain a gain, one has to reconsider the conventional understanding of the natural tendency to
attain a gain. It ought not to refer to one individual gaining the advantage over another, but rather
that the gain of one individual is intrinsically connected to the gain of others, and for this reason,
all human actions ought to aim at contributing to the harmony of all. For, as soon as one
individual, organization, or nation aims at ensuring an advantage over the rest of the
interconnected being, there arise the conditions for disequilibrium.
Bibliography
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book I, trans. Classics.mit.edu,
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book II, trans. Classics.mit.edu,
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html
Drucker, F. Peter, “What is “business ethics”?” The Public Interest, 26
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20080708_1981632whatisbusinessethicspeterfdrucker.pdf