Ethics in Global Business and in a Plural Society

Ana Marta González

[This is a pre-print version of the article published in Journal of Business Ethics

Volume 44, Number 1, 23-36, DOI: 10.1023/A:1023230222707 .
Copyright © 2003, Springer Netherlands. This is a RoMEO green publisher
Online access: http://www.springerlink.com/content/q57l4x68l0626t61/ ]

Abstract: The contemporary confluence of globalization and ethical pluralism is

at the origin of many ethical challenges that confront us nowadays, both in practice and
in theory. One of the challenges arising from the development of globalization, has to
do with respect for cultural diversity. It is often said that the success of economic
globalization tends towards social and cultural homogeneity. To the extent that cultural
diversity is usually seen as a valuable reality, that global trend seems to contradict our
efforts to respect ethical pluralism, both personal and cultural, within society. In this
paper I argue that a) ethical minimalism, despite its emphasis on tolerance and justice,
does not take pluralism seriously into account in present-day society, and b) ethical
minimalism is not suited to balance the homogenizing trend of globalization. Certainly
ethical norms are necessary, but by no means are they sufficient in themselves to
encourage either justice or tolerance; nor are they sufficient to inspire and encourage
good practices and sound regulations. Instead, a virtue-based ethic has the capacity of
inspiring and encouraging good practices. Particularly, a virtue-based ethic is able to
inspire a serious dialogue about ethical and legal issues both in the public arena and
within organizations.

Keywords: authenticity, ethical pluralism, globalization, human nature, liberal-

communitarian debate, minimalist ethics, natural law, practical reason, practical truth,
rationality, virtue ethics

1
 1. Introduction

Two topics are put together in this paper’s title: globalization and pluralism. They
are usually chosen to describe our present situation, whereby such combination entails a
particular ethical challenge for us, namely, is it possible to expand business while
respecting cultural diversity? To what extent is ethical pluralism compatible with
globalization of business?
In order to answer these questions we should begin by clarifying our concepts:
what do we mean when we characterize our present situation using terms such as global
business and ethical pluralism?
Indeed, assuming that the adjective “global” refers mainly to business, it is clear
that, at least theoretically, a plural society doesn’t need to be global. I say
“theoretically” because in practice it is hardly possible that a society without
international business can be plural at all. Throughout history, business has been a
source of cultural exchanges, and consequently of plurality. In this respect, one
interesting thing about globalization, such as this term is understood today1, is that it
seems to entail a tendency towards social and even cultural homogeneity. This is the
case at least in developed countries2. If we regard the existence of a plurality of cultures
as valuable, then we are raising an ethical question. The ethical question, however, is
not whether globalization is good or not, but whether its negative effects –and
particularly such cultural homogenizing trend- can be controlled, and how.
On the other hand, global business doesn’t necessarily involve creating a single
political society, at least theoretically speaking. Nevertheless, we should keep in mind
that whenever we speak of business, we are speaking of human actions and human
relationships, and, therefore, of ethics. This is true not only for individuals, but also for
corporations. Contrary to Donaldson3, who holds corporations to be merely “economic
animals,” I concur with Solomon4, Bowie5, and Enderle6 that corporations can be seen –
in fact they have to be seen- as ethical agents, since their movements rest finally upon
human decisions, which can be good or not. Now, politics and law are seminally
involved in ethics: the fact that we enter in contact with different peoples generates by
itself certain demands of justice and humanity. As regards to this ethical demand, the
Romans spoke of ius gentium. We surely need much more sophisticated regulations
than theirs, given the “international disorder” created after the end of the Cold War.
After such time when the international peace rested on a Hobbessian model, the present
situation seems to evolve towards a Kantian model, where law, and not merely balance
of powers, should have the last word. In any case, what is certain is that ethical reason
demands to fill legal gaps, whenever we find them. And yet, we should keep in mind
that regulations alone are not sufficient from an ethical point of view. Ethics involves
much more than creating rules and laws.
By “ethics” I mean a kind of practical knowledge which cannot be reduced either
to theoretical models or to “prudential” calculations (as long as we take “prudence” not
in the Aristotelian but in the Kantian sense, such as Bowie does 7). As practical
knowledge, ethics serves to direct our conduct by introducing order in the way we look
for certain goods (for instance economic benefits). This “order” is basically built upon
the subjection to certain norms and the development of moral virtue.
I hold virtue to be the key concept in ethics, and by extension in business ethics 8,
since virtue refers directly to the integral good of the human agent, which is the only
good we can really achieve in every situation in life -even if we don’t achieve any

2
other. Virtue is also necessary from an intellectual point of view, in order to recognize
opportunities to do some good; for without moral virtue we wouldn’t even know when
and how to apply norms.
Of course, the priority of virtue doesn’t mean the exclusion of norms. In fact,
grounding ethics on virtue alone could almost sound narcissistic. Norms are certainly
necessary. They make it clear that there are boundaries beyond which we turn to be
simply unjust. However, not to be unjust does not mean immediately that we are
positively just. Being just involves much more than avoiding inflicting harm to others.
It is much more than the subjection to certain conventions, however important they may
be.
In the present situation of global business, it is clear that there is a need for some
kind of regulation –what Cavanagh calls “political counterbalance” 9-, which can
prevent our societies from becoming arenas where only the strongest can prevail. But
this need should not lead us to rely on norm-ethics alone (whether inferred or
constructed)10-, and rejecting a virtue-based approach based. Rather, it is the focus on
virtues that, among other things, can prevent us from the supposedly homogeneity
resulting from economic globalization, since virtue -being the key concept in every
theory of the good life, is what makes a life valuable. After all, economy, by its very
nature, fails to transcend the issue of merely living. By itself, it has nothing to tell us
about what makes a life valuable or good. Consequently, the prevalence of economy in
a society represents the prevalence of survival criteria over criteria about the good life.
I am aware that in the present situation of ethical pluralism, some may be tempted
to embrace a kind of minimalist approach to ethical issues. This is, for instance, the
approach taken by Donaldson. In an article entitled “The Language of International
Corporate Ethics,” he says explicitly that “languages based in rights and duties,
avoidance of harm, or social contracts are better for understanding international
corporate ethics than ones based in virtues, self-control, or the maximization of human
happiness”11.
I wonder why. I don’t see any relation in stressing virtue and neglecting norms.
Virtue encourages us to seek norms whenever they are necessary. But norms alone are
not enough to implement good actions, since once the norm is known, we still have to
discover when and how to apply it. And this is a matter of prudence, which cannot exist
without moral virtue.
Certainly, at first glance, minimalist ethics may seem a better way of respecting
personal autonomy and of avoiding conflicts arising from cultural or ethical differences.
But is this first impression true?

In this paper, I argue that norm-based ethics is insufficient in itself, since it

usually reduces ethics to an intellectual enterprise aiming to clarify what the correct
action is here and now. In doing so, norm-based ethics forgets the practical dimension
of ethics: the fact that knowing how to act here and now requires virtue. The intellectual
enterprise directed to learn how to act here and know is not separable from the practical
enterprise directed to acquire moral virtue.
This intrinsic insufficiency of norm-based ethics results in its inadequacy in
guiding our actions both in global business and in a plural society. In particular, I argue
that minimalist ethics is not best suited for a pluralist society, for the simple reason that
it doesn’t take pluralism seriously. By trying to reduce artificially the differences
among people, minimalist ethics reveals a certain fear for serious controversy. That is
why minimalist ethics tends to favour a politically correct discourse instead of genuine
speech.

3
 On the contrary, virtue-based ethics tends to foster the search for the good, and a
serious dialogue about this matter. Having different ideas about the good in a given
situation is not a problem insofar as the search for real good is something we all have in
common. If this condition is fulfilled, we can engage in a serious dialogue with others,
which is an ordinary means to contrast, enlarge, and perhaps rectify our particular
visions about ethical matters.

To expose the argument, I will depart from a classical statement of Aristotle about
the nature of ethics, noting the difficulties it raises for a modern reader. It is in this
context that, in a simpler way than Thomas Hill in his article on Kantian Pluralism12, I
distinguish two broad senses of “ethical pluralism”: epistemological and existential
pluralism. Focusing on the latter, I address the topic of the insufficiency of minimalist
ethics in the context of a plural society, and, subsequently, the adequacy of virtue
ethics. In this context, I refer to “authenticity” as a feature in which we can hold
together the respect for autonomy which minimalist ethics tries to protect, and the
search for the good, implicit in virtue ethics. I close my paper with come remarks that in
a way synthesize the main points of my exposition.

2. Modern objections to a classical statement about the nature of ethics

A good way to enter into our topic is to recall the three factors that Aristotle takes
into account when speaking about “becoming good.” "Now some think that we are
made good by nature, others by habituation, others by teaching," (NE X, 9, 1179b 20-
21). We know his position as well: to become good, rational instruction does not
suffice, for ethics is not a purely speculative discipline but a practical one. Hence the
importance Aristotle accords to (good) habits; so much so that he deemed them an
essential prerequisite for attendance to his ethics classes. In his view, in order to profit
from these classes, one must first have been guided by good habits (NE 1, 4). Thus, the
actual experience of the good life is an important component of the preparation for
ethics. Whoever lives well is already acquainted with the content of morality. Such a
person is not far from the knowledge of moral principles. If he is not already familiar
with them, he will not be long in discovering them; for indeed he already practices them
constantly.

2. 1. But can we speak of good morals?

As illuminating as it invariably is to hear Aristotle's views, his approach

nonetheless leaves us a bit perplexed - and for two reasons. First of all, he speaks as if
all of us know what it means to be good. But perhaps that knowledge is not so easily
attained in our present situation, and perhaps even the very meaning of "being good" is
not nearly as clear to us as it seems to have been to him.
The reason for the perplexity Aristotle's views produce in us is well expressed in a
famous essay by Walker Percy, entitled "Novel-writing in an apocalyptic time." 13 This
American novelist draws our attention to the vast difference between the work of
authors who, like Jane Austen or Tolstoy, were writing at a historical moment marked
by a moral universe common to all (both authors and readers), and the contemporary
author - Percy himself is a fine example - who no sooner sets to work than he realizes
that such a universe no longer exists.14

4
 We live - so everyone says - in a multicultural, pluralistic society, where ethical
consensus is apparently reduced to a minimum, which excludes ideas of the good life.
At any rate, if one had to point to a question on which consensus does exist, it would be
precisely the conviction that each person is autonomous, the master of his own life,
which is his to arrange as he sees fit, regardless of the views of others. Were it not for
this conviction, laboriously acquired over the course of modernity, unquestionably
constituting an essential component of our particular ethos, we in the West would not
be facing the problem of social pluralism in the terms in which we now express it:
namely, how to achieve the goal of respecting a plurality of lifestyles within a common
political framework?

Implicit is the idea that all of these different lifestyles, insofar as they are the
expression of individual freedom, are, in principle, worthy of respect - since they fulfill
a moral demand to which Charles Taylor has drawn attention, and which is deeply
rooted in the modern ethos: the demand of authenticity.15 However, as we know, Taylor
himself has pointed out the need to avoid interpreting this term in an individualistic
sense, by showing what essential roles relations with others and with one's own
tradition play in configuring one's identity. Here, in its essence, is the debate between
communitarians and liberals.

For our purposes, the relevant point is that either from a liberal or a
communitarian perspective, Aristotle's approach is by no means problem-free. While
he has no difficulty in appealing to "the good man” he seems to take for granted that
everybody knows who this man is. How can we accept this perspective in a society like
our own, where cultural and personal diversity is so extensive? Is not the definition of
good man relative to the diversity of cultures?

2.2. But aren't there other concepts of ethics?

The approach - not so much Aristotelian as ancient in general - also leaves us

perplexed about a second element. For it assumes that the end of ethics is the learning
of virtue, and this, too - to our ears - sounds somewhat problematic. For in modern
ethics, for instance, many people thing that the mission of ethics is to teach people to
make the right decisions, with no mention of virtue. One might of course object that it
is impossible to make a right decision without having first trained practical reason
through the virtue of prudence: that is, without having acquired some degree of moral
virtue. But then there arises the thorny question of how to become prudent in the first
place, for how can anyone become good without making right decisions? Besides, one
might even ask when a decision is "right," ethically speaking. When it is
universalizable, as Kant would have it? When it produces the greatest happiness for the
greatest number, as utilitarians contend? Or perhaps when it effects the best balance of
our actions' positive and negative consequences? - Although here as well we run into
the problem of which ones are positive and which ones are negative. Moreover ( as if
this were not enough), one could still object that the evaluation of a decision as good or
bad depends upon the notions of the good peculiar to each culture, so that ethics itself is
dissolved into cultural anthropology.

2. 3. The double meaning of the expression “ethical pluralism”: existential and

epistemological

5
 If the mere mention of all this confusion suffices to illustrate the complexity of
our topic, it also allows us to point out the ambiguity of the term "ethical pluralism,"
something that must be kept in mind, given its inevitable effect on one's approach to
ethics.
Thus, in what we might call its "existential" sense, the expression refers to the
plurality of lifestyles: this is the ordinary meaning, the one Walker Percy employs when
speaking ironically of "apocalyptic times." On the other hand, in a more
epistemological sense, "ethical pluralism" refers to the variety of moral theories or
moral philosophies.

The most logical approach to throwing light on the teaching of ethics would be to
begin with the epistemological question and then elucidate (insofar as possible) the
very nature of ethics. This path, however, would lead us too far astray and prevent us
from addressing what we all (practically speaking) consider the main priority: the
pluralism of lifestyles, with the problems this entails on both the level of peaceful
coexistence and that of finding common ground on which to build our ethical discourse
and lay the foundations for teaching ethics, in the classical sense: the doctrine of the
fulfilled life.

Clearly, in selecting this aspect I will have no choice but to presuppose a certain
concept of ethics, at the expense of others. I wish to note here, though, that this
particular "concept of ethics" is not just one "theoretical construct" among many. Its
epistemological status is not that of the social sciences, but that of philosophy. This
means that my main concern while doing ethics is not to construct a model in order to
explain the rationality of human action; rather, I assume that human action can be more
or less rational, and that its rationality is of a peculiar kind: not theoretical, but
practical. To speak of practical reason is to speak of reason seeking to introduce order
in our actions, so that, despite the plurality of our objectives and desires, our life can be
unitary. In the same way, practical reason tries to find out what makes for an
harmonious and coherent coexistence of different lives -without thereby violating one's
own, or another's freedom. Just how practical reason does this is what ethics, and
practical philosophy in general, seeks to investigate. But that this "joining" is what
practical reason does, or at least endeavours to do, is beyond doubt.

At issue, then, is nothing less than an investigation of how to go about achieving

a fulfilled life in a pluralistic society. Choosing this point of departure will require us
to broaden the horizons of our considerations and to recall that ethics is a political
discipline. Reflection on what it is that makes a life good is by no means foreign to
reflection on what it is that makes coexistence something greater than an exercise in
mutual forbearance, i.e., a place where there is room for what is truly human to unfold.

3. The inadequacy of minimalist ethics in a pluralistic society

Indeed, when we speak of a pluralistic society in a context like this one, we are
endeavouring to throw some light on how to remove the obstacles to coexistence which
pluralism can indeed present - while avoiding both totalitarianism and sectarianism.
What we seek, then, is to take into political consideration the real possibility of every
person approaching his life in the way that seems best to him, regardless of others’
reactions.

6
 As I indicated earlier, consensus on this point is accounted for by approval of the
proposition that every person deserves respect for his autonomy. This is a value that
any modern person would probably be disposed to defend even at the price of increased
social unrest. True, when that unrest evolves into open conflict, it is easy to reflect that,
after all, being autonomous is not our sole aim in life. But this in itself does not
constitute an objection to the value of personal autonomy. The highest values are not
always the most urgent ones: survival may, at a given moment, be more urgent than
performing an act of generosity but there is no doubt that, absolutely speaking, the
latter is more noble.

In this context, it is a curious fact that in recent years it has been the perception of
unrest - cultural malaise - rather than open conflict which has chiefly led to the well-
known rehabilitation of communitarian thought. In various ways, this movement has
sought to recall that in real life man is not an autonomous subject; that in shaping his
identity the contacts established with others come decisively into play, so that one's
approach to his own life cannot be conceived of as emerging unhindered from a pure,
original individuality.

At any rate, communitarian reflections still serve as a corrective to the dominant

liberal discourse which places individual autonomy above all else. For although liberal
thought in recent years has indeed echoed the observations of communitarian-style
thinkers, in practice the liberal worldview continues in the direction of supporting a few
minimal ethical guidelines in the public square - tolerance and human rights - and
relegating substantive differences to private life.

By projecting this worldview onto social life, liberal thought claims to meet the
chief challenge that contemporary practical philosophy has posed for today's pluralistic
society: to bring together diverse lifestyles within a common political framework. This
challenge, incidentally, assumes unprecedented dimensions if, leaving behind the level
of national policy, we ponder the social effects of a globalized economy. For, assuming
for a moment that such an economy tends by itself to promote a certain social
uniformity, liberal proposal could apparently meet the challenge of combining moral
(minimal) universality and cultural particularity. To establish those minima moralia,
according to Donaldson, deontological or consequentialist approaches would be
preferable than perfectionist standards of behaviour.16

I wish to note that minimalist approach rests on a tacit assumption, namely, that
diversity represents a menace. And I wish to challenge this view by asking two
questions: does ethical pluralism really pose such a threat to social stability? And is the
solution that liberal thought proposes - along the lines of an ethical minimalism or
proceduralism - the only possible answer?

Pluralism of the kind described above need not, in my opinion, lead to the social
unrest and fragmentation reflected in so much of contemporary literature and practical
philosophy. True, it seems evident that a strong tendency in this direction is inherent in
ethical pluralism - as soon as discussion of what makes a life valuable is deemed an
affair of each individual's private domain, something each person ought to determine
alone. This would place enormous restrictions on the possibility of contrasting with

7
any profundity our opinions or lifestyle with those of others, thereby forfeiting the
chance to improve our own.

The point is that defending each person's opportunity to live as he chooses - as

seems best to him - does not mean that some ways of life are not better than others; and
certainly, it does not contradict the undeniable fact that, especially when it comes to
lifestyles, we all have a powerful desire to "get it right.” It is true, in other words, that
everyone follows what seems good to him, but not true that people generally prefer
apparent goods to real ones.

Clearly, the apparent good may be more attractive under certain circumstances,
and from certain points of view, but in general, human being as a rational animal, is
also an animal of realities. He or she requires rational dialogue with others in order to
clarify his/hers ideas about the nature of the good. Precisely for this reason, the
relegation of ethical discourse to the private sphere - when it is precisely dialogue about
these issues that throws the most light on the proper way to live - is, at the least, a
remarkable miscalculation.

Today, this error is echoed by every approach that makes ethical neutrality the
ticket of access to public life. And in the same way, often enough, the defence of social
pluralism is linked - it is not clear why - to an odd restriction of ethical discourse itself,
one that comes into force as soon as a person leaves his family circle and dons the hat
of a public figure. It seems, indeed, that once someone enters the public square, respect
for abstract plurality demands that one keeps silent about his or her own concrete,
personal convictions, making room for a presumably "objective" and "ethically neutral"
discourse. The effects of this state of affairs are all the more lamentable inasmuch as,
due to the natural unity of practical reason, the attitude we adopt in our public
behaviour inevitably tends to spread into the sphere of personal relations.

The fact is, any pretension to ethical neutrality is pure artifice, for human beings
are ethical by nature: we are always confronted to choose acting in this or that way.
Hence, the pretension of ethical neutrality, to the extent that it artificially silences other
human dimensions, tends by itself to favour a certain style of human relations, one
marked by self-seeking. The logic of this process is simple: urged on by the desire not
to offend anyone in his or her convictions - as if these could not be subject to revision
or improvement, and as if contrast could not provide the guidance for such change - we
avoid all subjects that we imagine controversial. We make our pact to limit public
discourse to those matters upon which we can agree, which - besides tolerance and
respect for abstract plurality - are the questions that concern the desire to live (not to
live rightly) - in other words, the concerns we have in common insofar as we are all
animals. Reason and words - which according to Aristotle exist to speak of the just and
the unjust, the useful and the harmful - are conspicuous by their absence, or else are
employed merely as a device for satisfying one's vital interests in a more sophisticated
fashion.

This is how we have come to speak of nothing but money or corruption, while
public discourse is gradually emptied of the human references that would help to
bestow meaning on personal action. For it is clear that words which find no resonance
in public life can only shed light on one's personal existence with difficulty. And
inversely: the dominant categories of public life easily come to constitute the only

8
reference points for those who know of no other, because of whatever life
circumstances they may have. This is how a logic of instrumentality can ultimately be
imposed on even the most personal of relations, so that each individual ends up seeking
his own interest, without anything that could be called an authentic common good.

Common goods - replaced by competing individual interests, often concealed

beneath the rhetoric of rights - are the great unspoken in our ethical discourse. True,
the political "common good" has always met with the suspicion that "reasons of state"
inspire. Besides that misgiving, though, the chief reason for the common good's
absence from our discourse lies in the difficulty liberal individualism has in grasping
the true nature of common goods. These cannot be conceived of as simple aggregates
of individual goods, or as the mere end result of competition among private interests:
After all, in contrast to the case of money and goods necessary for survival - which
diminish when shared, thereby generating a competition of interests - common goods
are enjoyed only when, and in the measure that, they are shared. Perhaps this is why
the clearest paradigm of the common good is the feast.

On the political level, the common good exists when the citizens perform some
action in common. The crucial question, then, is: What is it that can be done in
common in a pluralistic society? On this point - and to distinguish our thought clearly
from the totalitarian impulse that accompanies republicanism of Rousseauian-Marxist
inspiration - what must be emphasized is the practical nature of the common political
good. It is not the previous identification of the private will with the general, abstract
will that constitutes the common good, but rather the public confluence of different
opinions which, despite their diversity, have one thing in common: a desire for what is
best for the community.

In this context it is not superfluous to insist upon the enormous importance of

public opinion, pointing out, with Hannah Arendt, the implicit absurdity of a single,
monolithic, seamless public opinion.17 Public opinion, by definition, can only be an
expression of the plurality of voices that enter public dialogue. It is, then, primarily, a
question of conversing, of contrasting opinions about how we ought to approach
something we clearly do have in common: the problems of coexistence.

Accustomed as we are to instrumental rationality, we have transferred this style

of thinking to political activity itself, and have come to believe that all that matters in
the political realm is results. In so doing we forget that politics is not technology but
praxis. Results may have their importance but the way through which we attain them is
crucial. And many times this way involves conversation, serious dialogue. This is how
Aristotle justifies the idea of man's political nature, pointing out that he is endowed
with words so as to be able to speak of justice and injustice. We do this naturally. But
that naturalness is threatened when - whether with the excuse of a peculiar respect for
the autonomy of others, or the appeal to the supposed moral duty to identify oneself
with the general will - the artifice of ethical neutrality is imposed upon us as soon as we
step into the street. Having arrived at this point, liberalism and Rousseauian
republicanism travel hand in hand.

In my opinion, if the phantasm of neutrality were to cease exerting its powerful

influence over the minds of citizens, ethical pluralism would not have to lead to social
fragmentation. This was the view of that great liberal, Tocqueville, who attentively

9
observed American political life. Tocqueville understood that American individualism
would constitute no serious threat to social cohesion as long as the citizens continued
making use of their political freedoms -i.e., as long as they continued their active
participation in public life.

The American political experience, it seems to me, is an enlightening reference

point for questions of pluralism. When I speak of that experience I do not refer solely
to American political institutions - as extraordinarily effective as these have shown
themselves to be in welcoming people of remarkably diverse origin. Rather, I mean the
habits of political participation that Tocqueville found to admire in the United States
around 1830, the expression of a republicanism entirely different from the Rousseauian
brand, better understood in light of Aristotle, Montesquieu or the thinkers of the
Scottish Enlightenment;18 a republicanism that leads each individual to feel that the
public space is his or hers, and to protest wherever he perceives any infringement of his
or her right to it.

To the degree that contemporary ethical pluralism means a radicalization of that

individualism, the threat of social disintegration it could entail can be met with the
same therapy: the exercise of political liberties, beginning with freedom of expression.
To this end it is essential to free oneself from the mental restrictions imposed by
preoccupation with what is "politically correct"; otherwise, those problems which are
on everyone's mind but which, out of concern for political correctness, no one will
discuss, vanish from public opinion. If we did not find it so hard to speak openly, from
our own, personal perspective, of the difficulties that we believe affect our coexistence,
ethical pluralism would cease to be a problem - since we would be speaking of
concrete realities, not of global visions of the world. Almost without realizing it, we
would be doing something together: working - each from his own point of view -
towards the common good. And it is only because this, after all, is what we are doing
that society somehow remains unified.

There is always room for improvement - or for deterioration. Deterioration

occurs, for instance, when each one pursues by violent means the objectives that one
deems right, from one’s (inevitably) limited perspective. In this connection it is
germane to recall that if the common good categorically excludes anything, it excludes
violence; for, as Hannah Arendt observes, violence excludes reason and words.19 This
is why it is unacceptable to call war the continuation of parliamentary discussion by
other means (Clausewitz). Anyone who would affirm this must conceive of politics as
merely instrumental: technique, not action. As technique, it must ultimately be the
speciality of a few experts, placed in charge of liberating the rest of the citizens from
the bothersome task of managing their own lives.
Since violence is the negation of politics, violent confrontation is excluded from
the political arena, but verbal confrontation is not. Far from it. The absence of
controversy - a natural result of human plurality - would be the clearest indication of a
lack of political vitality. Moreover, authentic controversies, about substantial, and not
merely procedural, issues, are just what is needed to reintroduce into public discourse
the ethically meaningful references that would allow us to repopulate social space with
attitudes and arguments other than the ones to which instrumental rationality has
accustomed us.

10
 Indeed, everyone must be aware that to foster such a dialogue we need more than
words. We need a high degree of civic commitment and the practice of numerous
virtues. That said, we must make it clear that we are by no means claiming that
political commitment automatically guarantees ethical conduct. Often enough -
skeptical as we are - we are tempted to think just the opposite. Nonetheless, it is
evident that a country's political vitality is a clear sign that its people are not imprisoned
within the sphere of private life, which in itself is an indication of ethical growth.

Furthermore, if a particular citizen's political commitment is driven by the

seeking of his or her own interests, that does not disqualify him or her, ethically
speaking. The essential thing is that in seeking their interests, they refrain from
violating the demands of justice and solidarity. It is well to recall here that virtue is not
one good among many but rather the appropriate way to pursue other goods - and that it
therefore consists not in performing certain actions and avoiding others, but in
performing actions in a certain way, without even stopping to ponder the possibility of
performing others (the ones moral tradition recognizes as intrinsically evil). It is not, in
the final analysis, evil to pursue one's own interests, understood as the individual good.
We all do so. What would be wrong would be to pursue them regardless of any other
consideration. The difference, thus, is between pursuing private interests in a just or in
an unjust manner (for example, with the use of public funds).

Now, certainly, what is pertinent politically is not so much the intentions and
feelings that inspire an action as the words spoken and the deeds accomplished. But
even here, it is obvious that both words and deeds, because of what they imply and
reveal, require of all parties - those who govern, because they govern; those who are
governed, because on them depends the very control of the government - something
more than a minimalist ethics. It requires an ethic of virtues.

4. A virtue ethics for a pluralistic society

In my view, what follows from this is that the notion of ethics that should be
revived in the context of a pluralistic society is not minimalist ethics, but virtue ethics.
The drawback of this proposal is that, at least initially, it appears less appropriate to the
multicultural character of our societies than a minimalist ethics. I propose to show in
what follows that, contrary to appearances, from a theoretical as well as a practical
point of view, an ethics of virtue responds more satisfactorily to the demands of the
contemporary ethos than does a minimalist ethics.

Moreover, it seems clear to me that even the values most prized by contemporary
ethical discourse can withstand contact with reality only if they cease to be abstract
values and are transformed into virtues. Indeed, if tolerance is not viewed through this
lens - as a virtue - it soon becomes merely a euphemism for a state of mutual
indifference. Likewise, if justice is not seen primarily as a virtue - a habit of our will,
by which we choose, in a stable fashion, to render to each person his due, even when
this renders against our own interests - then the term is reduced to legal proceduralism.
At any rate, not even an ethical minimalism would reign in the public square. For
ethics would not reign at all: other things would. Either tolerance and justice are
virtues or, as far as ethics is concerned, they are nothing at all.

11
 If tolerance and justice are to be seen as virtues, which would mean being
incorporated as stable attitudes, something beyond argument is needed. Once we arrive
at this point, the fundamental difficulty of the teaching of ethics becomes the one Plato
addressed, and Solomon20 reminds us: Can virtue be taught? Can people be taught to be
good? To this question, I believe Aristotle's answer - that one needs nature, reason and
habits21 to be good - has the merit of offering us both an answer to this question and a
key to grasping fully the change wrought in modern moral philosophy.

For if, as so many maintain, modern moral philosophy is rationalistic, then

mindfulness of Aristotle's answer helps us to understand better what it is that such
rationalism consists of: the aspiration to make moral philosophy a science like other
sciences, with insistence above all on the function of argumentative rationality, at the
expense of nature and habits.

This vision of ethics - present above all in rationalistic thinkers - was severely
criticized by Hume, who rightly acknowledged the insufficiency of theoretical reason
on the level of practical motivation. Hence, Hume himself opted for an ethics of good
sentiments, persuaded as he was of reason's incompetence in practical matters, of its
instrumental role regarding what to his judgment was the only possible source of
motivation: the passions.

Kant's objection to this approach is well known, as is his intent to recover the
practical character of reason. However, all that was left for Kant to do, once he had
expelled nature from morality's domain, was to constitute pure reason as something
immediately applicable, taking duty to be the original moral datum. Ever since then,
Kantian-inspired ethics has had to face repeatedly the objection formulated by
"teleological ethics,” namely, its incapacity to explain moral motivation.

Teleological ethics, which inherited from Hume a concept of reason as purely

instrumental, has had to be defended against the objection that deontologists (among
others) level at it. They contend that by reducing practical reason to instrumental
reason, teleological ethics exhibits a forceful tendency to overlook the intrinsically evil
character of certain actions, and thus to instrumentalize man and woman for ends that
are often abstract.

At any rate, aside from the criticisms that advocates of each position direct at
each other, both have one thing in common. Both reduce ethics to its rational
dimension, giving priority to the method employed to discover ethical norms, and
forgetting thereby that an abstract knowledge of the norms is by no means enough
when we come to the real life. Indeed, they tend to forget that the teaching of ethics
cannot be reduced to mere rational instruction, but must take nature and habits into
account as well.

It would assuredly be useful here to distinguish between the practical-existential

level, the locus of conduct, and the philosophical-practical one, the level proper to
ethics as a discipline with its place in the academic world. It is helpful to make this
distinction, for it seems obvious that, as an academic discipline, ethics cannot go
beyond rational instruction since, among other reasons, it would amount to undue
interference in the conduct of others. This fact, however, should not induce us to forget
that philosophical ethics is itself a disputed discipline, accused of an unbridled tendency

12
to reflect upon its own presuppositions. Precisely because it does so reflect, it is entitled
to broach the idea of the need to accompany rational instruction with behaviour that
incorporates the principles of moral reasoning: what Aristotle finds in the good man.

Still, the question of the recognition of the good man remains hanging in the air.
Can we, after all, establish universally who will be taken as a good man in every
situation and culture?

The answer - the obvious answer - is No. It is, in any case, true that the ideal of
good man varies from one culture to another. Ethics, in other words, is incorporated
into cultures. Nonetheless, the identification of some traits, and not others, as "good" in
the context of any culture conforms to the same principles. This is a philosophical
proposition which, precisely because it is a first principle, does not admit of direct
empirical demonstration. But it can be argued for by adopting what Spaemann calls a
"pragmatic-transcendental" view, a kind of counter-factual proof: it is obvious that a
denial of certain practical principles common to all men, to the extent that it amounted
to a negation of the unity of human nature, would self-evidently contradict the
expectations that we manifest again and again in practice when we persist in seeking to
deal with human beings from other cultures and to establish community with them - or
when we deem it a failure if we fall short of doing so.

Well and good: but what are these principles? Not "human rights," or any
abstract values, but the ends of the various virtues which, as Thomas Aquinas puts it,
are known by means of a natural habit called "synderesis." This habit operates on the
level of action analogously to the way in which the principle of non-contradiction
operates on the theoretical level. As the habitual knowledge of this principle enables us
to recognize a contradiction as we speak or listen to another's discourse, so also
synderesis allows us, as acting individuals, to recognize which of our actions contradict
the good of man.

Clearly, to the extent that the human good - exemplified in the good man -
appears different in various cultures, moral perception will differ in each individual.
But these distinct modes of perception of the human good do not constitute a diversity
of the principles of virtues, since in the end these are not modes of action - which may
indeed vary with cultures, but which in the last analysis are translations of the same
dispositions in the agent. Gratitude or generosity may have varying manifestations in
different cultures, and it is the task of socio-cultural anthropology to render such
manifestations decipherable to the eyes of the Western observer. But gratitude and
generosity are dispositions that perfect man, whatever his culture may be.

In this connection it is well to remember that, as etymology suggests, "culture"

refers to the cultivation of nature, not its destruction. Hence, to affirm that human
nature is cultural is not to equate culture and morality; it simply means that in each
culture the perception of the good of man follows a particular outline - just as, within a
single culture, people of differing temperaments approach the same matter in distinct
ways.

I realize that by introducing an appeal to nature at this point I have opened

Pandora's box, and cannot avoid saying something about the subject. "Nature" is
perhaps the concept most reviled by modern moral philosophy: so much so that one is

13
tempted to do without it. Forgetting nature, however, would be a terrible mistake in any
case, but especially in the present one: for if there is no nature, morality is merely
conventional, and there is no way to distinguish education from manipulation.

That said, I will limit myself to indicating that by "nature" I mean what Aristotle
meant by "órexis": desire, appetite - including both the tendencies and inclinations
which man shares with other beings and those which are specific to him. As is well
known, Thomas Aquinas makes use of a similar classification of natural inclinations to
develop his doctrine of natural law in the celebrated second article of question 94 of the
Summa Theologica. In the context of this work, however, I do not wish to continue in
this direction, since a proper understanding of St. Thomas' approach would require
more time than is available to us. Instead, I would like to draw attention to the concept
of nature understood as appetite, and to show its relationship to another Aristotelian
concept: "natural virtue," as opposed to "moral virtue.”

Thus, when Aristotle speaks of natural virtue it may be understood as a natural

disposition to perform a certain kind of good action: there are, for instance, people who
"naturally" tend to be orderly. Left to their own devices they immediately begin to
organize everything they come across. Being orderly is not, perhaps, the most common
trait among men and women; still, all of us - some more than others - possess some
natural virtues. However, if reason's guidance is lacking, the natural virtues can by
themselves be harmful – they can even change the very nature of an act. Thus, a person
who fails to use reason to gauge the circumstances in which he finds himself may,
moved by an impulse of generosity, in fact commit an act of extravagance or injustice.
For it is how an act is put into practice that determines its real definition. Now, the
enactment is not the result of pure nature but the effect of the intervention of reason on
natural disposition. When this intervention takes place - and it can, for our sensitive
nature is susceptible to rational influence - the moral disposition already present in us
via synderesis truly has room to become effective, and shapes our character, perfecting
it with moral virtue.

"Neither by nature, then," says Aristotle, "nor contrary to nature do the virtues
arise in us; rather we are adapted by nature to receive them, and are made perfect by
habit." (NE, II, 1, 1103 a 24-26). Because such an aptitude exists, moral formation is
not manipulation but the actualization of potentialities. It is the process by which a
man becomes a good man, whatever his culture may be - no matter how variously the
modes of virtuous action - gratitude, generosity, hospitality, etc. - are manifested in
each culture - and no matter how the perception of the good of man tends to emphasize
some modes over others. If a culture is to be coherent, it must, like an individual, be
attentive to the harmonious integration of various human dimensions, and must do so in
a way that fosters the growth of persons.

Advocating virtue ethics in the context of a society like our own is at least as
respectful of cultural plurality than minimalist ethics could be. Indeed, I would say it is
more so: for whereas minimalist ethics, under the guise of neutrality, in fact favours a
public square monopolized by instrumental rationality, virtue ethics seeks to promote
human growth from within, fostering the strengthening - also from within - of whatever
culture is in question, without discrimination of any kind. Virtue ethics favours cultural
diversity precisely inasmuch as it rests on the acceptance of the natural foundation that

14
forms the basis of the coherence of any culture and seeks, from this point of departure,
the growth of the persons who share a lifestyle.

Assuming this natural basis - which means excluding, as incompatible with

virtue, those acts known as intrinsically evil - virtue ethics, at least as understood by
some of us, indirectly adopts the classical doctrine of natural law, but avoids its most
normative formulations and underlines its practicality. In this way we also find
ourselves well situated to support the ideal of authenticity which is at the heart of the
contemporary ethos, an ideal that seeks to do justice to the singularity and
unrepeatability of each person's own existence. Those who pursue this ideal are not
content with appeals to an abstract morality and would logically be quite disappointed
with the reduction of morality to a set of abstract principles.

Now, to be authentic, it is not sufficient to second the voice of nature -

particularly when that voice reverberates in our ears in terms as ambiguous or
contradictory as the echoes of it found in Rousseau. To be authentic, one must, instead,
act in accordance with the truth one knows, but without forgetting that our knowledge
of the truth is progressive, occurs within time, and is often nourished by the experience
of error. Here we owe to Inciarte his observation that speaking of "right reason" is by
no means redundant, since the rectitude of reason in the area of the practical consists
precisely of the continual effort to correct oneself: right reason is correct reason,
corrected along the way.22

The ideal of authenticity can and should be associated with the image of truth-
seeking man. This image does justice simultaneously to the historical and to the
metahistorical character of human life (and which, not coincidentally, plays such a
fundamental role in Walker Percy's major novel, The Moviegoer).

In times like our own - on the one hand pluralistic, on the other marked by
cultural syncretism (and to that extent homogeneous) - it is easy for traditional
reference points to enter into crisis, simply because the cultural tradition behind them
has done the same. These are confused times, but also times in which the very contrast
between diverse elements invites us continually to redefine our identity in terms that are
most congruent with the new situation.

The criterion we use to do this can be neither the past nor the future. The
criterion itself cannot be purely temporal. As I see it, we bear that criterion within us,
and it is implicit in what has been said about practical truth, that is simply a way of
referring to the inner coherence that must guard our actions so that these are in keeping
with the demands of meaning that arise from our nature. Inasmuch as we are rational
beings, we are open to the truth. Truth is what we are seeking even when we err. We
possess this capacity to discern truth and falsity by nature, no matter how difficult it is
for nature to make room for itself when confusion is very strong or the search for truth
is lacking in intensity. In either case, the task of philosophy is to introduce clarity and
encourage the search.

5. Conclusive overview

I summarize here the main points of my exposition.

15
 One of the ethical challenges arising from our present situation of global business
and ethical pluralism can be summarized in the double question I presented at the
outset: is it possible to expand business while respecting cultural diversity? To what
extent is ethical pluralism compatible with globalization of business?

My answer to the first question is positive, as long as we notice that business is a

practice exerted by moral agents and inserted in moral contexts, and therefore subject
not only to economic criteria, but to moral criteria as well. However, we should refrain
from reducing these moral criteria to extrinsic norms of the kind proposed by ethical
minimalists. I have said that ethical norms are necessary but in no way sufficient to
guide our actions. In order to act well we need not only norms but also moral virtue.
Moral virtue is necessary both to discern which action is required in these precise
circumstances, and to implement the action.

This presupposed, I have said that moral virtue respects and promotes cultural
diversity in so far as it promotes human growth from within the human agent, in his or
her particular context. However, it avoids relativism in so far as moral virtue, beyond
the different cultural modes it can adopt, rests on the same moral principles: every
culture values generosity, although each one reflects this value in a different way. On
the contrary, minimalist ethics tend to gain universality through abstraction,
formulating principles which remain unpractical as long as they are not incorporated by
virtue.

Moreover, since virtue is the key concept in every theory of the good life –that is,
what makes a life valuable-, it is the focus on virtues and not merely in norms which
can prevent us from the supposedly homogeneity resulting from economic
globalization. The reason is that economy, by its very nature, fails to transcend the issue
of merely living. By itself has nothing to tell us about what makes a life valuable or
good. Consequently, the prevalence of economy in a society represents the prevalence
of survival criteria over criteria about the good life. If we don’t stress the criteria
referring to the good life, cultural homogeneity, in line with an economic culture, i.e, a
culture of survival or a material culture, is unavoidable.

As regards pluralism within our societies, virtue ethics has also much more to
offer than minimalism. For minimalist ethics has a theoretical approach to ethical
pluralism. It tends to see the social risks of ethical pluralism and tries to overcome them
by speaking of a moral minimum. I think that this approach is mistaken. It rests on
several arguable assumptions: 1) it assumes a static view of ethics, forgetting that
human beings can change their views over time, and they often do when they find
something better; 2) it assumes an anti-social vision of ethics, forgetting that human
beings often seek the truth by speaking with their fellow men and women; 3) assuming
a theoretical and epistemological approach, minimalist ethics tends to present itself as a
technical knowledge, forgetting that ethics is not primarily a matter of experts but a
human matter, and therefore quite democratic; 4) as a consequence, minimalist ethics
tends to artificially exclude, both from the public arena and from organizations, a
serious dialogue about ethical issues. Instead they favour the language of the
“politically correct.”

On the other hand, virtue-based ethics has a practical approach to ethical

pluralism. As a consequence, its focus is on the human agent, on his or her moral

16
empowerment. It rests on one basic assumption: human beings have a natural aptitude
to look for the truth in theoretical and in practical matters, and therefore, to acquire
moral virtue. The actualisation of this aptitude requires both habituation and rational
instruction. The fact that we may not have the same ideas about the good is not a
problem. We are naturally endowed with the capacity of speech, to contrast and perhaps
rectify our opinions. Virtue ethics has no fear of pluralism, rather, it encourages the
open dialogue about ethical matters in the public arena and within organizations. As
long as we speak we avoid violence and we are doing something in common, that is, we
are constructing the common good.

17
1
See Boatright, J. R., “Globalization and the Ethics of Business,” in Business Ethics Quarterly, Jan. 2000, vol. 10, nº 1, pp.
1-7, p. 2.
2
See Yukimasa Nagayasu, “Globalization and business values in the Asian-Pacific Region,” in Business Ethics: Japan and
the Global Economy, edited by Thomas W. Dunfee and Yukimasa Nagayasu, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht /
Boston / London, pp. 81-94, p. 92.
3
See Donaldson, Th., “The language of international corporate ethics,” in Business Ethics: Japan and the Global Economy,
p. 121.
4
See Solomon, R. C., Ethics and Excellence. Cooperation and integrity in business, Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 133.
5
See Bowie & Freeman (eds.), Ethics and Agency Theory, Oxford University Press, 1992, p. 3.
6
See Enderle, G., “What is business ethics?,” en Business Ethics: Japan and the Global Economy, p. 138.
7
Beauchamp and Bowie take “prudence” in the Kantian sense, when they take it as opposed to morality, and equate
prudence to self-interest. Cf. Beauchamp & Bowie, Ethical Theory in Business, 1983, p. 2. Aristotle, on the contrary, hold
prudence to be both an intellectual and a moral virtue, since it can not exist without moral virtue. The turning point in the
history of ethics in regard to this issue came with Duns Scotus, when he explicitly separated prudence and moral virtue.
8
Indeed, as Solomon puts it, “part of the problem is the way we tend to separate –or pretend to separate- our business from
our personal lives, as if these were unrelated and independent, as if one ‘left’ one’s values at the office door.” Ethics and
Excellence, p. 105.
9
See Cavanagh, G. F., “Political Counterbalance and Personal Values: Ethics and Responsibility in a Global Economy,” en
Business Ethics Quarterly, Jan. 2000, vol. 10, nº 1, pp. 43-51.
10
Dunfee, for instance, presents “a theory based upon multiple social contracts… as a means of legitimising a core of
universal ethical standards for international transactions.” Dunfee, “The Role of Ethics in International Business,” in
Business Ethics: Japan and the Global Economy, pp. 63-80, p. 63. Enderle, in turn, favours a model inspired by Rawls’
“overlapping consensus.” See Enderle, “What is business ethics?,” in Japan and the Global Economy, pp. 133-150. And
also “Whose ethos for public goods in the Global Economy. An Exploration in Interantional Business Ethics,” in Business
Ethics Quarterly, vol. 10, 1, pp. 131-144.
11
See Donaldson, “The language of international corporate ethics,” in Business Ethics: Japan and the Global Economy, p.
115.
12
See Thomas E. Hill, Jr., “Kantian Pluralism,” in Respect, Pluralism, and Justice. Kantian Perspectives, Oxford University
Press, 2000, pp. 11-32. Here Thomas Hill distinguishes four senses in which an ethical theory can be called pluralistic,
namely: 1) whether it accepts one or many basic ethical principles; 2) whether it acknowledges the existence of
incommensurable values, fundamentally different kinds of value, some of which are not amenable to calculation; 3) whether
it maintains that we can determine the fundamental principles of right conduct without relying on independent judgments
about what sorts of lives, experiences, and achievements are intrinsically valuable; and 4) whether it opposes unnecessary
restrictions on liberty, dogmatic assertions of moral truth, and moralistic judgments about other cultures and the life-styles
chosen by other individuals.
13
"What interests novelists in these peculiar times, or at least this novelist, and what they are mainly good for, is not such
large subjects as God, man and the world, but rather what he perceives as fault lines in the terrain, small clues that
something strange is going on, a telltale sign here and there. Sign of what? A sign that things have gotten very queer
without anyone seeming to notice it, that sane people seem to him a little crazy, and crazy people sometimes look
knowledgeable - a little like the movie The Body Snatchers, where everybody looks and acts normal, except that they are
not - but no one notices, except the poor novelist, who has nothing better to do than to notice that people are not themselves
yet feel obliged to act as if they were." Percy, W., Signposts in a Strange Land, ed. Patrick Sammway & Ferrar & Straus &
Giroux, New York, 1991, pp. 153-158.
14
"There have been times when societies were triumphant and became true cultures, when people, through their values and
beliefs, knew who they were and were at one with themselves. And then maybe it was the function of poets to celebrate the
triumph. The Iliad, The Aeneid, The Divine Comedy, Henry V, War and Peace were such celebrations. Even in bad times,
major writers had major roles - like Langland, Chaucer, Milton, Whitman. Because, bad as times were, there was still a
consensus of sorts. Symbols signified. A people could be rallied, consoled, entertained, told stories, or at least affirmed in
their unhappiness. A dirge, a lament, even a jeremiad implies an intact society. But what to make of times such as these
about which anonymous adjectives, best and worst, desperate and hopeful, signify equally? It is a peculiar century which
sees the greatest advances in science and in social betterment of man, yet which has been called by Raymond Aaron the
century of terror. It is a time notable not so much for its series of catastrophes, the millions who have been slaughtered, the
Holocaust, but for the banality with which these atrocities are committed and taken note of." p. 156.
15
Cf. Taylor, Ch., The Ethics of Authenticity, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1991.
16
“In particular, deontological or consequential ethical languages that can be used to establish minimum rather than
perfectionist standards of behaviour, and which are not overly dependent on analogy with human moral psychology, are
better than ones ranging broadly over both minimum and maximum standards and requiring analogy to human beings.”
Donaldson, “The language of international corporate ethics,” in Business Ethics: Japan and the Global Economy, p. 116.
17
To be sure, the men living on the American frontier also belonged to the people for whom the new body politic was
devised and constituted, but neither they nor those who were populating the settled regions ever became a singular to the
founders. The word 'people' retained for them the meaning of manyness, of the endless variety of a multitude whose
majesty resided in its very plurality. Opposition to Public Opinion, namely to the potential unanimity of all, was therefore
one of the many things upon which the men of the American Revolution were in complete agreement. They knew that the
public realm in a republic was constituted by an exchange of opinion between equals, and that this realm would simply
disappear the very moment an exchange became superfluous because all equals happened to be of the same opinion."
Arendt, H., On Revolution, The Viking Press, New York, 1963, pp. 88-89.
18
Seligman, A., The Idea of Civil Society, The Free Press, New York, MacMillan, Inc., 1992, p. 33.
19
Cf. Arendt, H., The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London, 1958.
20
Cf. Solomon, R. C., Ethics and Excellence. Cooperation and Integrity in Business, Oxford University Press, 1993.
21
Aristotle, Politics, VII, 13, 1332 a-b.
22
See Inciarte, F., “Discovery and Verification of Practical Truth,” in Festschrift für Elizabeth Anscombe und Peter Geach,
Linacre Studies in Bioethics. An Annual Review, 1994. See also, “Practical Truth,” in Veritá e Morale, Roma 1986; See
also, “Theoretische und praktische Wahrheit,” in Rehabilitierung der praktischen Philosophie, vol. II, ed. Manfred Riedel,
Rombach-Verlag, Freiburg, 1974; See also, El reto del positivismo lógico, Rialp, Madrid, 1973.