Friedman vs. Plato—Self-interest vs. Social Interest
James Michael Bell
Dr. Neely
Core 1: Business
7 October 2010
Friedman vs. Plato 1

Friedman vs. Plato 2
Friedman vs. Plato—Self-interest vs. Social Interest
Corporations and Society have a great deal in common. Both consist of many individuals performing various tasks and ideally working with and for each other and they may also be described in economic terms. Nevertheless, even with such a broad comparison, disagreements arise from business-minded thinkers as to the role of individuals within a corporation and society. For example, Friedman and Plato, two vitally important contributors to business theories and policies, disagree on the role of self-interest in business. Friedman thinks that only the employees of a business should exercise self-interest to promote individual social interests; whereas Plato would argue that the self-interest of all members of an ideal society should be to exercise the social interest, working for the betterment of the collective.
In The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profit , Freidman (2007) promotes capitalism, which is a system that relies upon individuals acting on self-interest to support an economy. In that regard, his argument relies on self-interest. On the other hand, Plato
(2007) uses the story of “Gyges” (p. 84) in the beginning of the passage of The Republic to explain the unethical nature of human beings and later establishes that self-interest is essentially unimportant when compared to the social interest of society because self-interest leads to overindulgence, which was the downfall of Greek democracy. To draw a comparative analogy between Friedman (2007) and Plato (2007), society is relative to business as citizens are relative to employees, so Plato’s society and Friedman’s business may be considered similar entities; however, their perspectives on individual self-interest within them are considerably different.
One strong difference between Plato and Friedman’s ideas of self-interest in business is the contrasting view of Friedman (2007) that employees, not employers, must pursue their own self-interests. When an executive allocates capital to a specific cause contrary to the interests of

Friedman vs. Plato 3
the employees, Friedman (2007) says, “The executive is exercising distinct ‘social responsibility,’ rather than serving as an agent of the stockholders or the customers or the employees” (p. 214). In such a situation, Friedman would feel it inappropriate for an employer to decide where funds should go because it would interrupt the self-interest of his or her employers.
Friedman (2007) further points this out asking questions such as, “How [are executives] to know how to [socially] spend [money]” (p. 214). In Friedman’s case, it is important that each individual, employee or consumer, make a personal decision whether to spend money toward social interests. If the allocation of money to social causes is left in the hands of an employer, especially a corporate executive with great control on the global economy, it will uproot capitalism, replacing it with a collectivistic economy.
In contrast, Plato’s passage from The Republic argues for exactly the type of collectivist system that Friedman (2007) condemns as a “fundamentally subversive doctrine” (p. 217).
Instead of promoting individual self-interest like Friedman, Plato (2007) strongly promotes that self-interest will lead to a desire for excess because humans are highly acquisitive. To solve the problem of human avarice, Plato (2007) conceives a system under which each member of society—or employee of a business for the purposes of this discussion—must share the products he or she produces trough trade in order to achieve the greatest possible state (p. 86). Doing so is in the best interest of society because “More things are produced , and better and more easily when one man performs one task according to his nature at the right moment, and at leisure from other occupations” (p. 85). However, in that each individual is working to provide for every other, Plato is advocating for individual focus on social interests, and in that regard, the interests of businesses should be purely social because individuals with social interests form them.

Friedman vs. Plato 4
Friedman and Plato present highly contrasting views of business and society. Friedman
(2007) denotes that it is up to the self-interest of employees to promote their social interests; however, Plato (2007) describes a society in which the self-interest of all members is to exercise social interest. Friedman is realistic when discussing his theory on the social responsibility of business and self-interest, while Plato is idealizing a conceptual society. Considering those differences, it is possible to reconcile the differences between these two thinkers to synthesize an economic strategy under which individuals, be they consumers or employees, practice selfinterest and social interest simultaneously with minimal influence from corporations in social spheres. The economy of the United States is principally a mirror of such policies in action today.

Friedman vs. Plato 5
References
Friedman, M. (2007). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In C.M.
Boardman & A.N. Sandomir (Ed.), Foundations of business thought (pp. 213-217).
Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Plato (2007). From the republic. In C.M. Boardman & A.N. Sandomir (Ed.), Foundations of business thought (pp. 84-87). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.