2022 Post Covid 19 Narrative Suggestion For Malaysia – A Kantian And Mill Ethical Theory Contrast For Malaysia

By Author: premkumar nadarajan.
Total Articles: 26
Comment this article

The question often arises as to whether ’ethics’ and ‘morality’ are different from one another. For our purposes, we will equate the two. I would exclude the descriptive ethics model at this point because of the concise requirement of this assignment. Suffice to say, descriptive ethics as a whole “seems” ( emphasis mine) to offer an accurate dimension of ethics model on business by describing and explaining the state of ethical affairs to the business person similar to a menu where a customer can choose his or her food from. There are two obvious weaknesses in this choice, namely , one, the menu may not accurately describe the items stated, thus giving an obscure or even worse, a perverse viewpoint to the business person ( or customer) when making a decision; secondly, there may be a misleading or deceptive method/methodology of “describing” the item, thus defrauding the business man of a just outcome ( in this case, a proper meal , so to speak ) albeit with the right amount of legitimization of a legal superstructure.
Keeping this in mind, I will now discuss the issues at hand , limiting my scope to ...
... only prescriptive ethics; namely norms or principles providing guidance on deciding what is ethically good or bad, in a reasoned and ordinarily rational manner, through argument and discourse.
With regard to prescriptive ethics, it is necessary to discuss the two extremes within this model to decide which of the two, if it can be resolved as such, would be better for the business man or business arena concerned. The two extremes here are namely the Deontological Theory of Kant and Mill’s Utilitarian Theory . The former, basically states that there is an insistence that moral action requires conformity to moral principles; such principles not being guided or led by individualist or human subjective practical experience, but by a transcending guidance of superlative rationality. Applying Kant’s ‘pure reason’ uncontaminated by practical experience is a sufficient source for ethical guidance in the practical business sphere. In addition to ‘pure reason’, Kant also states that ‘good will’ is required for the sustainable maintenance of good business behavior. This goodwill is the capacity we have to decide what we want to do and what we wish to become. ‘Good Will’ is necessary because without it, ie if only’pure reason’ is looked at, natural and rational dimensions could and would corrupt the human lens in viewpoint of the business arena. A ‘good will’ is defined as the will that obeys the universal moral law from a sense of duty, by translating the universal moral law into practical business resolutions which act in a specific way.
On the other hand, Mill’s ‘Utilitarianism’ assumes the moral worth of an action by any human is determined solely by its ‘usefulness’ or utility either in providing happiness or pleasure;morality of actions in a business context being judged by their consequences; in simple terms, the end justifying the means. All actions in the business arena are sustainably “good” when it results in happiness for the majority of those affected by the specific principle in question. This especially, according to Mill, should come into action in ‘hard cases’ , where there is a moral dilemma, one should merely apply empirical means to quantify which of the two or more possible alternatives for action would result in the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Note here that happiness for the majority may in most cases negate an isolated happiness to the contrary of an individual or a minority.
One would need to look at the various criticisms to Mill’s theory. The objection or criticism is that the theory degrades human beings to the level of animals because of the statement of happiness being possibly equated to ( although not limited to ) carnal pleasure. The second criticism is that the pursuit of happiness should not be regarded as the rational purpose of life. The third goes like this, utilitarianism encourages and breeds selfishness because the maximization of one’s happiness often necessitates the negation or severe reduction of another’s happiness. The fourth criticism is that utilitarianism is a utopian ideal .
Before I recommend the more likely or sustainable theory for usage in the business arena, it is necessary to revisit the answer to the criticisms of Mill’s theory. Hart summarizes Mill’s answers to these four criticisms above respectively. With regard to the first, Mill states that human pleasure differ greatly from animals. While humans strive to increase the general happiness through their actions, there is a readily made assumption that humans will give preference to their mental or higher pleasures. In answering the second criticism, that the fact that some individuals may seem to have sacrificed their own ‘lower-self’ happiness for the sake of the happiness of others, does not defeat the theory; but substantiates it, because such individuals , according to Mill, were doing so to accord to a “higher –self” of happiness. As for the third criticism, Mill argues that the state should inculcate a culture of equal consideration to the interests and happiness of all its citizens, thus impartiality and not selfishness will prevail. With regard to the fourth criticism, Mill’s laughed off his critics by stating that they completely misread his theory; Mills stated that happiness of the greatest sum here means the maximization of happiness of each individually on his or his own; not the general happiness of a nameless entity defended by his critics as “society”. Mill reinstates that it is the happiness of each individual constituted together in a majority viewpoint ( as opposed to a consensus), not the happiness of a utopian personality called “society” as in entirety or as a whole.
It is also necessary to revisit the implications of Kant’s theory in practical terms as to whether it can supersede Mill’s as a better option to review and judge business policies and decision making. Kant when referring to the universal moral law ( referred to in the universal moral law of superlative rationality in the introduction) , states it as the ‘categorical imperative’. An imperative is something that one has to do; a command that one has to obey. For example, if one owns a business, if the business person wants to gain a reputation for reliability, then it is imperative that he or she should provide reliable products and/or services to their customers. However, the imperative here is merely a hypothetical imperative, because it only applies with a subjective goal , ie gaining a positive reputation. A ‘categorical imperative’ on the other hand, applies to every person regardless of personal goals; an imperative form which no one is excused.
From the above discussion so far , in a business context, Kant’s theory seems much more rigid and intolerant compared to Mill’s. Hart, a proponent of Mill’s theory has debated with Kelsen ( a proponent of Kant’s theory) and their arguments have been recorded for the sake of scrutiny in the business arena . In one sense, there was an agreement for both sides in identifying principles objectives in both theories, Mill’s had the ultimate principle of pursuit of happiness whereas Kant’s had the principle of a “reasoned norm of goodwill”. From that point on, however, there was a great divergence of opinion, between the two scholars because Kant’s position was that the means should justify the end , whereas for Mill, the end can and in most cases would justify the means. Kant’s position seems to be also more abstract in nature than Mill’s , it is submitted here there here is perhaps a negative score for the former, because the day to day decision- making in the business world rests on hard concrete decision making processes; making the obvious choice in favor of the latter. On the other hand, it is submitted, that perhaps both theories can have a role to play, Kant’s being more metaphorical and abstract being used to draw mission statements and long term objectives and ideals of a business; whereas Mill’s theory is more readily applicable in a day to day rational and down to earth practical reasoning of business objectivity.

In conclusion , I would humbly note that Joseph Raz a prominent philosopher in both Kant and Mill’s theories sums up the combined position of the best of both worlds in the following four precepts or principles for the business world namely: i) people’s lives are successful and fulfilling to the extent they are spent in whole hearted and successful engagement in valuable activities and relationships , ii) for most people today, autonomy is arguably an important if no the most important component of living a good life , iii) moral pluralism is favourable and iv) governments have a duty to promote the well being of people.

lecturer at a private learning institution ( UTAR).