Ethics where $- matters more!

Every Society expects its Politicians , Bankers and Finance Executives to potray ethical behaviour and to integrity-come what may; we expect organizations to have just the ‘right’ culture to imbibe ‘Virtuous decision-making’; vis-à-vis knowing that norms and rules, even when combined with effective supervision, are insufficient to ensure the perfect scenario ; where all your efforts yield gold and silver. Sometimes you’d have to carry the bronze into the city and try to make a decent buck out of it.

Well not that I am gloating; but sure some may ask us : What is ethics ? I’ve heard a lot about it ,but never fully understood it.[/b]

Sure I am not here to judge you. So let us start with a simple example. One which might be easily grasped by anyone………

You go to a Bank and the cashier gives you Rs.500 instead of the Rs.100 you had filled the withdrawal form for. What would you do ? If it were asked in an Interview for a Firm to test your moral integrity which one of these would you have chosen.

1. Keep the money because it’s the bank’s fault

2. Return the money because it’s theft if I keep it

3. Return the money because it belongs to other people

4. Return the money because I believe in honesty.

Let us see what Immanuel Kant has to say about these options . For those of you who are unaware of kant; Immanuel Kant (22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804) was a professor of philosophy at Konigsberg, in Prussia, researching, lecturing and writing on philosophy and anthropology during and at the end of the 18th Century Enlightenment.

Kant’s, the Critique of Pure Reason, united reason with ethos to go forward from what he took to be dogmas of traditional philosophy and metaphysics. He hoped to bring the curtains down on an age of speculation where objects outside experience were used to support what he saw as phony theories; opposing the sceptic and idealistic thinkers such as-Berkeley,Hume and Descartes.

Now that we have seen his CV ; let us move on to what he might have said to the aforementioned 4 options.

According to Kant, what is singular about motivation by duty is that it consists of bare respect for lawfulness. What naturally comes to mind is this: Duties are created by rules or laws of some sort. So , If he were live he would show his slippers at you. Believe me it is not pleasant ; Ask Kalmadi.

It is categorical in virtue of applying to us unconditionally, or simply because we possesses rational wills, without reference to any ends that we might or might not have. It does not, in other words, apply to us on the condition that we have an antecedent adopted on some goal for ourselves. So if you want to feel good about yourself that you are not a thief like A.Raja and boast about it with your friends at the next tea party – how the country should follow in your footsteps – because you are moral : Kant would have not approved. Becaue you did it not for the greater good ; but for self-propulsion.

Again this is not a option Kant will have opted for. It again is consequential on many lines. First of all you want to think that it would do good for the society. Which is thinking about the ends and not being categorical in your imperatives.

Refer to points 2 and 3 again .

[/list]

Anyway what Kant presents us is an ideal. What he says is that the good will is one that acts from duty in accordance with the universal moral law that the autonomous human being freely gives itself. This law obliges one to treat humanity – understood as rational agency, and represented through oneself as well as others – as an end in itself rather than as means to other ends the individual might hold. But in this day and age if you follow 2,3,or 4 ; it is adequate. But quoting Kant may substantiate your Interviewing process.

Coming back through Kant’s work and numerous other doctrines in philosophy, Ethics have been mainly classified into these broad categories :

· Ethic of Ego – it refers to thinking on the lines of --what’s right is what’s best for you, you, and only you... – in short it is like a child tumbling on the road to lead for a lollipop when his mother refuses

· Ethic of Obedience – thinking about-what’s right is what the society has laid down – the inability to stand up ; earthworm-like behaviour ; in short –you don’t need a spine for this.

· Ethic of Care- what’s right is what’s best for all of us- actually thinking that your actions –however small or big it may be ; can affect the society and it is always better to pile up more on the positive side of the scale.

· Ethic of Reason - what’s right is what I judge is right – we all have witnessed this one at our schools ,colleges , or at work atleast one time. Why stop there even most of our parents do it , unwillingly or willingly. It is the inability to accept that the world desn’t revolve around you. Galileo would be crying in his grave. It manifests itself in the form of Bajrang Dal’s Valentine fiascos , Shivsena’s Ethnic pitch , The Khap panchayat incidents –to name a few in our country.

According to a survey of 280 top executives , it was learned that almost all of them identified bureaucracy as the biggest roadblock to the path to ethical harmony in the market and field and they feel helpless as removing the current honchos will result I in them losing control for a long time – not a viable option.

-----

------------------

When did we lose track of our footprints on the sand ?

Was it ,when we grew desperate for more land ?

Or was it when our mornings grew dull ,

as the birds refused to sing ,

In the land ;

Where it was a taboo, to do the right thing…………………..???

------------------------------R.Ajay.Kumar

 

[LekshmiGPilllai]

This is a very insightful discussion on ethics, especially in today’s world where money often overshadows moral values. Ajay, I appreciate how you brought Kant’s philosophy into the debate — his idea of acting from duty and universal moral law is a powerful reminder that ethics should not be conditional or self-serving.

In practical terms, most people do choose to act ethically either because they believe in honesty (option 4) or because they understand the broader impact of their actions on society (options 2 and 3). But as you pointed out, doing the right thing purely out of duty — without expecting reward or recognition — is rare yet ideal.

I also found the classification of ethics very relevant:

Ethic of Ego explains why some prioritize self-interest above all.

Ethic of Obedience shows how societal pressure can either enforce or blind moral judgment.

Ethic of Care resonates as the most balanced, emphasizing collective good.

Ethic of Reason reminds us how subjective judgment can sometimes cause conflict when we fail to see beyond ourselves.


It’s true that bureaucracy and power dynamics complicate ethical practice in organizations. Yet, the hope lies in individuals who choose to uphold integrity despite challenges, thus setting an example.

Thanks for sharing this though
t-provoking post!

 

[Priyani Gupta]

Thank you for the thought-provoking and layered article. You’ve stitched together philosophy, societal expectations, and the daily moral dilemmas that many of us tend to overlook—creating an engaging yet uncomfortable reflection on what truly constitutes ethical behavior.


Your use of Kantian ethics, particularly his emphasis on duty and the moral law, adds a much-needed philosophical depth to what is otherwise often treated as a superficial checklist in corporate ethics training or public debates. Kant’s belief that morality lies not in consequences or self-congratulatory action, but in acting out of pure respect for duty, is a powerful reminder. You rightfully assert that returning the extra cash at the bank merely to look good or avoid guilt doesn't meet Kant’s gold standard of morality—it only looks good on a résumé.


However, one must consider whether Kant's categorical imperative is practical in modern, hyper-complex societies. Kant assumes a level of rational autonomy and moral clarity that today’s sociopolitical frameworks, riddled with bureaucratic paralysis and moral ambiguity, simply do not afford the average citizen. For instance, you referenced political figures like A. Raja and the Khap Panchayats—examples where ethical collapse isn't individual but systemic. In such a context, insisting on pure moral will seems idealistic, even naïve.


The division of ethical approaches—Ego, Obedience, Care, and Reason—was insightful and allowed readers to see how their choices often sit on a spectrum of self-interest versus collective good. However, I would argue that these categories aren’t always mutually exclusive. Many real-world ethical decisions are hybrids. For example, returning money to the bank can stem from care (impact on others), reason (logical decision), and obedience (legal/moral code), all at once. Isn’t that messiness precisely what defines human morality?


Your critique of bureaucratic hurdles faced by executives seeking ethical reform was particularly impactful. If those at the top feel paralyzed, how can we expect the ethical will of the lower echelons to flourish? It’s a stark revelation of how ethics isn't just a personal compass—it’s deeply shaped by structures and environments.


That said, I would challenge your tone in places. Comparisons like “earthworm-like behavior” for those who follow social norms or invoking “Galileo crying in his grave” weaken your otherwise solid arguments by veering into ridicule. While controversy can provoke thought, a touch more empathy for those grappling with moral choices might strengthen your message. Not everyone who follows societal norms lacks a spine; sometimes, they’re simply trying to survive systems stacked against them.


In summary, your article serves as a necessary reminder that ethical behavior cannot be automated through rules or enforced through fear. It must be nurtured, not only individually, but institutionally and culturally. We need less moral posturing and more ethical architecture that supports people at every level—from cashier to CEO—to choose integrity, not just to avoid scandal, but because it aligns with their conscience.