Theological Ethics and

Business Ethics Richard T. De George

ABSTRACT. Philosophers have constituted business to be, and given this view, I shall suggest why
ethics as a field by providing a systematic overview that most philosophers who view the field in this way
interrelates its problems and concepts and that supplies have paid little attention to theological ethics.
the basis for building on attained results. Is there a Secondly, I shall characterize from the point of
properly theological task in business ethics? The religi- view of a philosopher what most theologians
ous/theological literature on business ethics falls into
w h o deal with the ethics of economics and
four classes: (1) the application of religious morality
business seem to do, and h o w this relates to
to business practices; (2) the use of encyclical teachings
about capitalism; (3) the interpretation of business business ethics. I shall finally draw some con-
relations in agapa-istic terms; and (4) the critique of clusions from these observations.
business from a liberation theological point of view.
Theologians ,have not adequately addressed the ques-
tions of whether there are particular theological tasks I. The field of business ethics
in the field as they define it, and whether, if they define
it, the theological definition is different from the philo- Business ethics means different things to dif-
sophical. ferent people. No one controls the field and no
one can by his or her fiat legislate what those
Religious thinkers and moral theologians have who work in the field must do. A great deal of
for a long time toiled quietly and persistently on shoddy work attracts the label. In the hands of
social issues and the morality of economic some business practitioners it becomes a self-
systems and business practices. Suddenly in the serving justification for whatever practices they
past decade philosophers have entered, if not wish to pursue. In the hands of other writers it
invaded, this territory.1 Moreover, philosophers becomes a blanket c o n d e m n a t i o n of capitalism.2
have not only arrogantly appropriated to them- The field is still -in the process of definition, and
selves the area of business ethics, but they have I believe that it will become fully established as
indirectly denied that theological ethics has a field only to the extent that those within it
anything to offer them. continue to develop high quality research in an
As one of the invaders, I shall a t t e m p t to objective, scholarly manner.
explain a philosopher's view of the field. I shall Strictly speaking, business ethics did not
first describe what I believe business ethics become a distinctive, recognizable field at all
until recently. Prior to that, religious moralists
Richard T. De George is a Distinguished Professor of preached Christian morality in business as else-
Philosophy at the University of Kansas. He is Vice-
where. Some moral theologians trenchantly
President of the International Federation of Philo-
criticized capitalism and c o m m u n i s m as socio-
sophical Societies, former President of the Meta-
physical Society of America, and a past member economic systems and pursued the area of
of the Executive Committee of the Society for Busi- social ethics. But social ethics, rather than busi-
ness Ethics. He is the author of Business Ethics ness ethics, dominated the concern of m o s t of
(1982) and a co-editor of Ethics, Free Enterprise them. Professors of business taught classes and
and Public Policy (1978). published books on both corporate social

Journal of Business Ethics 5 (1986) 421--432.

© 1986 by D. Reidel Publishing Company.
422 Richard T. De George

responsibility3 and some aspects of manageri- business ethics as a field. That philosophers with
al ethics. But insofar as they were concerned diverse philosophical orientations and commit-
with managers they tended to ignore the ments so quickly found so much to do was
perspective of workers and the public. Insofar taken by them as an indication that others had
as they wrote on social issues in business, their not done that job before them. The unworked
work was reactive rather than systematic. All of portions of the field, once discovered, drew
this activity, useful as it was and is, was not philosophers in surprising numbers.
coherently tied together. Most of the earlier The work that philosophers pursue in busi-
work lacked both a theoretical overview of ness ethics is of four different kinds. The first
related problems and concepts necessary to deals with cases. Business ethics is frequently
constitute a field, and the systematic search for identified with solving cases or dilemmas that
new problems that lead individuals to build on arise in business. Yet, this aspect of it is the least
one another's work. Too often there were solu- philosophical and of the least interest to many
tions or answers or moral imperatives with too philosophers in the field. Cases may be and
little development of a problematic demanding frequently are important for teaching business
new research. ethics. They can be dealt with equally well by
The philosophical books and journals in busi- moral theologians and by moral philosophers.
ness ethics, taken together,4 are the basis for the From a research point of view, however, many
claim that philosophers by their joint work have philosophers have little interest in either in-
developed a systematic framework within which vestigating or solving cases. Professors of busi-
previous work could be placed, and have thereby ness are typically better prepared to develop
defined a field. The framework consists of a detailed case studies and are more interested in
developed, interconnected set of problems, doing so than either moral philosophers or moral
issues, and concepts that range from the morali- theologians. For the philosopher, however, cases
ty of economic systems to such questions as can raise several research possibilities. They
whistle blowing, workers' and consumers' rights, present the challenge of fitting the cases into the
corporate responsibility, and environmental whole framework of the field, and of developing
protection. Within this framework disputes and general second order moral principles to handle
disagreements emerge and debates take place. them. Beyond that, philosophers can tease out
Research in the field consists in both raising and of cases moral issues that need attention, clarifi-
attempting to solve new problems. A number of cation, and discussion. Finally, cases not only
philosophers developed portions of the field stimulate imaginative consideration of how to
previously ignored, and opened up new avenues prevent repetitions of them from arising in the
of theoretical research. future but they also help to develop suggestions
The charge of arrogance, I suspect, stems that business might implement if it wishes to be
from these and similar claims which are taken to moral, or that government might adopt, if
be either self-serving or patronizing. necessary.
But suppose the philosophers were correct in In order to do all of this one needs not only
perceiving that those in business and theology knowledge of the business world in general and
prior to the philosophers' invasion had not the activity or practice in question, but also
developed a systematic overview and a research some knowledge of how to frame ethical prac-
programmatic for business ethics, and had tices or activities, how to balance competing
answers rather than questions. Then why should moral demands, 5 and how to clarify the prin-
philosophers not develop a general framework ciples that underlie the practices and activities.
of problems and raise the issues philosophers The case of Weber vs. Kaiser Aluminum and
deal with? Most of the philosophers who first the United Steel Workers6 illustrates the kind
entered the field read the theological and busi- of research that cases can suggest. That case
ness literature, since that is all there was. But involves alleged reverse discrimination. What is
they did not think that literature constituted reverse discrimination? Was this an instance of
 Theological Ethics 423

it? What is allowable in the way of affirmative to these questions are not supplied by general
action? Philosophers can appropriately bring ethical theory, which traditionally has been
their skills to bear in both discussing and help- concerned with the actions of human individuals.
ing resolve these issues. 7 To my knowledge The meaning of responsibility, clearly, must be
theologians had not done this work. If they changed if it can be appropriately applied to
were to do it, I do not see how the results could corporations (or nations, etc.) as well as to
be different from the results of the philosophers. human persons. The analysis of this type of
The second activity that philosophers saw the problem in business ethics cannot take place
need for involves clarifying basic terms in busi- in abstraction from general ethical theory. But
ness and uncovering the ethical presuppositions the relation between business ethics and general
frequently either assumed or ignored by those in ethics is reciprocal, and those involved in busi-
business. Such terms include, for instance, ness ethics often engage in metaethical inquiries
private property and its justification; freedom that their work demands and that general theory
when applied to negotiations or legitimate con- does not provide. What the moral status of
tracts; and the use and exploitation of both corporations is from a theological point of view,
labor and materials. The presuppositions and whether it differs from a philosophical one, or
uses of cost-benefit analysis, accounting pro- what a theological approach would add or
cedures, and so on, all need critical investiga- change is not clear.
tion. Part of the task of business ethics is to Fourth, those philosophers involved in busi-
help clarify terms in business that play an ness ethics sometimes are forced by the discovery
important part in the moral evaluation of vari- of embedded problems to go beyond the field of
ous business practices. Discussions of marginal ethics both into other areas of philosophy and
utility, profit, wages, and equal work are not into other domains of knowledge - economics,
only appropriate to economics but also to organizational theory, and so on. But when they
business ethics. Analysis of terms and of pre- go beyond their own areas they typically do so
suppositions is a traditionally philosophical with an eye towards resolving some problem in
task. Theologians might engage in such analysis; business ethics or in relocating in some other
if they do, it is not clear to me whether their area what appeared initially to be a problem in
techniques differ from those of the philosophers business ethics. This activity becomes especially
and what is specifically theological in their important in dealing with macro-moral issues,
analysis. In any case philosophers found a such as the moral obligations, if any, of rich
great deal of such analysis to do. countries to poor countries, or of multinational
The third kind of activity that philosophers corporations to host countries. Here our ordinary
engaged in business ethics pursue is specifically moral intuitions are less clear than they are in
ethical and metaethical. Business ethics is more our personal dealings with other individuals.
than the application of general ethical theories Many philosophers in business ethics are still
to cases or issues in business. Those involved in struggling to sort out these issues, to see which
business ethics both apply general ethical are moral and which are not, and to clarify the
theories and test ways to expand the theories. language and the level of moral discourse.
They also raise difficulties that force a rethinking If philosophers take these activities as con-
of portions of the general theories. 8 For in- stitutive of the business ethics field, then they
stance, one of the important issues to have emphasize what is properly philosophical in the
emerged is whether, to what extent, and in what usual meaning of the term. This involves analysis
way corporations can or should be held morally' and theoretical exploration, as well as the appli-
responsible. Are they simply organizations and cation of moral norms.
artifacts that should be controlled, are they Most philosophers assume that the task
moral entities or quasi-moral entities with rights, theologians typically take upon themselves
or do they have some other status and are they differs from the task that philosophers take
to be viewed in some other light? The answers upon themselves. If these tasks of business
424 Richard T. De George

ethics are properly philosophical, one silently hess independently of any consideration of
argues, why should one expect theologians to God's existence or of revelation. He attempts to
have done them? The arrogance of philosophers work on the basis of reason and human experi-
perhaps consists in their assumption that close ence alone. Given these different starting points,
analysis of terms and the uncovering of pre- the philosopher assumes that he is engaged to a
suppositions are their province and that theolo- large extent in a different enterprise - ir~volving
gians do not engage in those activities, or if they different methods and approaches - from the
do engage in them they do so as philosophers moral theologian. If the premises of philoso-
rather than as theologians. This view of the phers and of theologians are different, then the
theologian as philosopher is not a philosopher's most a philosopher can hope to learn from a
invention but comes from the Thomistic tradi- theologian's moral judgments is whether the two
tion which distinguishes between the Thomistic of them reach similar conclusions or make
theology in Summa Theologiae and the Thomis- similar moral judgments. The philosopher,_faced
tic philosophy in Summa Contra Gentiles. The with a different answer to a moral problem from
belief is not that theologians do not or cannot the theologian, might well pause and consider
make fine distinctions, but that as theologians whether the conclusion of the theologian may
they usually make them on theological points. be right. But he will have to rethink the whole
If the task is philosophical, the philosopher has issue in philosophical terms because his premises
little reason to think his job has already been are not the theologian's.
done by a theologian. Conversely, if there are Second, the moral philosopher in business
theological tasks to do, there is little reason to ethics presupposes as his audience either his
think the philosophers will do them. Theologi- fellow philosophers or the general public - in-
ans appropriately apply moral theology to cases. cluding the business public - whom he approaches
In doing so they may have to clarify issues, just from a secular point of view. He assumes the
as the philosopher does. Perhaps, moreover, openness of this public to arguments based on
analysis is neutral between philosophy and reason. Moral obligations may be grounded
theology and differences arise only in the philosophically or theologically or in both ways.
defense of the moral norms that one applies. The philosopher expects, however, that primari-
If this is the case, then the analysis and develop- ly religious people will pay serious attention to
ment of problems and concepts by theologians the theologian. Since the philosopher wishes
is as pertinent to philosophers as is similar to address all people willing to reason, whatever
analysis by other philosophers, by people in their religious beliefs and independent of those
business education, by lawyers, or by anyone beliefs, the philosopher assumes that the two are
else. The question then is whether theologians intentionally either addressing different audi-
have in fact done or are doing the analytic ences or addressing partially overlapping audi-
work that philosophers have been doing in the ences in different ways. It seems appropriate to
field. the philosopher that theologians address mem-
Two other preconceptions lead philosophers bers of their own religion. If a theologian
to expect their work to be different from that of addresses non-believers, he presumably attempts
theologians. The first is that moral theology has to influence them by the strength of his feelings,
as its starting point some theological presupposi- by the intuitive appeal of his value judgments, or
tions. The Bible is one source of moral theology; by his persuasive skill rather than by strictly
tradition is another. But the validity of both theological arguments. If the appeal is only in
of them seems to rest on the prior assumption of terms of reason with no resourse to theology,
God's existence, and the belief that He has made the theologian assumes the approach, if not the
His will known through the Bible and the role, of the philosopher. Theologians can of
teaching of Christ and His followers. The philos- course argue strictly from reason. But unless a
opher in business ethics starts from the assump- theological argument has a theological premise,
tion that he can deal with moral issues in busi- it is not clear what distinguishes it as a theologi-
 Theological Ethics 425

cal argument or conclusion. II. A philosopher's view of theologians and

Someone may object that the general public business ethics
accepts Kantianism or Mill's utilitarianism or
Aristotle's view of ethics no more than - and What do theologians who approach the ethics
probably less than - a Christian view of morali- of economics and business do? 1 shall identify
ty. But philosophers need not presuppose any four common religious or theological approaches
prior acceptance of philosophical positions. to business. The four are not necessarily ex-
They need not argue that, if you accept Kant, clusive and any given writer or thinker may
then this action (x) is immoral. They can argue represent and mix any two or more of the
that this action (x) is immoral for reasons which approaches. Although my survey is incom-
they give, irrespective of who previously said plete, the four positions are important and
what. It is not clear that as a theologian one can widely held ones.
argue irrespective of what the Bible and tradi- The first, which I shall call the moralistic
tion say. Something like the Judeo-Christian approach, consists merely of applying general
tradition may infuse American life t'o such an moral prohibitions against stealing, lying, etc.,
extent that large numbers of the general popula- to the realm of business. It also typically places
tion are responsive to discussions of moral emphasis on the poor, on improving their lot,
issues in business from a strictly Christian or and on making demands either in justice or in
theological point of view. The issue I am raising, charity for a greater portion of wealth for the
however, concerns not the size of one's audience poor within a nation or world-wide. The second,
but the method of approach. which I shall call the encyclical approach, is that
Whether or not these presuppositions and identified with the social thinking of the Catholic
assumptions of the philosopher are correct, Church as found particularly in papal encyclicals.
many philosophers believe that theologians as The third, the agape approach, takes its inspira-
theologians do not engage in the same kind of tion from the New Testament, and frequently ap-
analysis as philosophers engage in, that the two peals to agape. The fourth is the liberation
groups work from different presuppositions, that theology approach, which seems to swallow
one cannot transpose moral judgments from the the Marxist critique of capitalism whole, to
theological to the philosophical domain without identify with socialism, and to draw conclusions
rethinking their foundations, and that philos- accordingly.
ophers and theologians speak to different audi- I shall register my reaction briefly to each of
ences. As a consequence, many philosophers these four approaches in an attempt to dif-
feel they can do their own thing in business ferentiate what theologians do in discussing
ethics without paying too much attention to business from what philosophers do in business
what the theologians are doing. They are per- ethics. In some cases my reaction will be critical.
fectly willing to admit that theologians in busi- I shall suggest some things theologians might do
ness ethics may have little interest in what the in business ethics. But most importantly, I hope
philosophers are doing. to encourage theologians to articulate the
Philosophers, having invaded the field of theological problematic for business ethics and
business ethics, have laid claim to large por- to differentiate it from the philosophical one.
tions of it, if it is defined as I have suggested. (1) The moralistic approach to business con-
But no one has to accept that definition, and sists simply in applying general moral or religi-
good theological research might force a redefini- ous prohibitions or injunctions to the realm of
tion and a broadening of it - or perhaps the business. It is an old approach to business
development of another parallel field. exemplified in part by philosophers and non-
philosophers as well, and in religion it is perhaps
more characteristic today of Sunday sermons
and of the Moral Majority than of serious con-
temporary moral theologians. Yet consideration
426 Richard T. De George

of it helps sharpen the notion of business ethics, - may carry with it special obligations with
/rod I shall therefore make several observations respect to the members of that group, com-
about this approach to ethics in business. munity or organization. If Catholics have a
First, the moralistic view implies there is no special obligation to support the Church through-
special field of business ethics, since religious out the world, or to help poor parishes through-
morality is. the same in all realms. One simply out the world, this does not mean that all
applies this morality in the realm of business people have that obligation. This observation
as elsewhere. We have already seen part of the suggests there is at least a danger of confusing
reply to this claim. There are special problems sin with immorality, a danger the theologian
of a conceptual nature that have to be clarified need worry about and might have to sort out
before some normative issues in business can be in doing business ethics.
intelligibly raised, much less answered. These Third, religions present ideals as well as obli-
issues constitute part of business ethics. There gations. The injunction to sell all that one has
is therefore a special domain. Moreover, while it and give the proceeds to the poor may be a
is true that those in business should be governed religious injunction. It is not clearly a universal
by the same morality as anyone else, there may moral injunction that binds all people. Perhaps
be special moral obligations that one has because if one wishes to be a true Christian one is en-
of one's position or role, and only by consider- joined to do this. But that can and should be
ing roles in business will these special obligations distinguished from what every person is morally
be uncovered and articulated. More philosophers obliged to do, and from what every business is
have accepted business ethics as a field than have morally obliged to do. That the poor need more
clergymen or theologians. is obvious. That they deserve special moral
My secofid observation concerns the equation treatment is not obvious, since in such ap-
of morality and sin by the theological moralistic proaches to morality as Kantianism and utilitari-
approach. "Sin" is a religious and not a philo- anism, each person is to count for one and only
sophical term. Sin is, moreover, broader than the one. The Church and some of its holy people
realm of the immoral. For sin covers breaches work among the poor in an exemplary way.
not only of moral rules but also of religious Some of the work of saints is supererogatory.
rules. Those who use the moralistic approach in The injunction to sell all one has and give the
religion frequently meld religious and moral proceeds to the poor is not a moral obligation
obligations together. But the two types of but a religious call to higher virtue; it is an
obligation can and should be kept distinct for admirable part of the moralistic approach. But
clarity's sake. The Commandments of the one can usefully keep distinct the difference
Catholic Church, for instance, are different between what is morally obligatory and what is
from the Ten Commandments. The former supererogatory. For the most part the philo-
are religious obligations. For a Catholic to break sophical approach to business ethics has con-
them is a sin, but not immoral, since to break centrated on the morally obligatory. I~ can learn
them does not violate universal moral norms from the moralistic approach to look as well at
binding on all. Religious obligations might well the ideal and the supererogatory. But, if we
go beyond moral obligations. As a member of a look at the textbooks and journals in the field,
Church one is bound in certain ways that non- we find that although philosophers in business
members are not bound. Moreover, by being a ethics discuss the morality or immorality of
member of a Church, one forms a community practices, they tend to refrain from preaching or
with others who also belong to that Church, and moralizing, which is the domain those fol-
one's obligations with respect to them may well lowing the moralistic approach properly take as
be different from and greater than one's obliga- their province.
tions to others who do not belong to that Religious writers and preachers often give the
Church. Being part of a Church - just as being impression that they think the problems of
part of any group, community, or organization international poverty will dissolve before love
 Theological Ethics 427

and charity. Philosophers in business ethics, who Some claim that the social teachings of the
approach the poverty of the Third World from Catholic Church, although theologically founded,
the point of view of justice, are still struggling to are compatible with a philosophical natural law
develop a satisfactory view of global justice. approach. This may be an instance of theology
They focus on multinational operations, on the and philosophy coinciding in their solutions or
meaning and analysis of exploitation with in their moral injunctions and prohibitions. But
respect to people and resources, and on com- if the natural law approach is philosophical,
pensatory justice for peoples and nations. These then it stands on its own feet. Those who want
problems cannot be solved by simply applying to check their moral reasoning against the
general theories of justice. Rawls, for instance, results of theology may of course do so. But
specifically denies that one can transpose his if one is arguing philosophically, then it is inap-
theory from the national to the international propriate to change or skew one's position to
realm. 9 The approach of many theologians to make it coincide with scripture or revelation.
problems of world poverty focuses on individ- Theologians may sometimes act and argue from
uals or the Churches themselves. Many philoso- a natural law position without any reference to
phers search instead for impersonal, structural, revelation or any religious tradition. To the
secular, organizational solutions demanded by extent that they do, their work does not seem
justice. The concern of the two groups seems particularly theological, i distinguish that work
different. It is too early to tell whether the from their properly theological work - even if
work done from the two approaches is com- they do not always do so.
plementary or antithetical. This said, let me turn to the social teaching
Finally, within Christianity there has long of the encyclicals. I shall make two observations.
been a tension with respect to business. On the (a) The social encyclicals are praiseworthy as
one hand-the Protestant work ethic preaches far as they go. But they are most often very
diligence and thrift, and promises commensurate general. Taken together 12 they provide some
rewards. On the other hand the Christian mes- general moral orientation, put emphasis on the
sage teaches that one should not pay too much dignity of the human person, and sometimes
attention to money, goods, material things. deal with particular issues - such as the just
Love, virtue, character, and eternal salvation are wage. Since Chistianity exists in many different
of far greater importance. One's attention there- economic systems, any social encyclical is
fore should be on the hereafter; one's wordly appropriately general. Business ethics as re-
ambitions should be limited; and one's concern presented in American writings, however, deals
with forgiveness, patience, and forebearance, primarily with practices within the free enter-
whatever one's position, should be paramount. 10 prise type of economic system. Although the
The tension between these two is evident not encyclicals might provide a guide for working
only in the moralistic approach but in some of out issues in business ethics, the encyclicals
the others as well. n The implications of this do not engage in that work. This suggests an
tension for those theologians interested in busi- approach for theologians interested in business
ness ethics may suggest a problematic that they, ethics. They will, however, have to square their
but not philosophers, need address. work with the implication of some of the
(2) I identified the second approach with the encyclicals that only socialism is morally justifi-
social thinking of the Catholic Church, especial- able and that both communism and capitalism
ly as found in the papal encyclicals. This tradi- are to be condemned. 13 If the condemnation of
tion is also identified with the tradition of capitalism is taken seriously, this certainly poses
natural law. To the extent that natural law is special problems for one interested in dealing
taken as a philosophical position, someone ap- with business ethics insofar as it is a considera-
proaching business ethics from this perspective tion of morality within the capitalist system.
is doing philosophical business ethics as I under- (b) The social encyclicals deal with econom-
stand it, not theological business ethics. ics rather than business and provide a basis for
428 Richard T. De George

social ethics. In an attempt to apply the encycli- structures, corporate rules, and the obligations
cals to business, some interpreters call on busi- and moral responsibilities of corporations and of
ness to help solve social issues. If business is not businesses. Exactly how, and whether it is even
ready to help solve the issues voluntarily, they appropriate, to expect corporations to act from
propose through legislation to force businesses agape rather than from moral obligations of a
to turn their assets to solving these social prob- general type is at least open to question. To the
lems. This approach, however, confuses social extent that business ethics deals with the obliga-
with moral obligation. tions of those who fill certain roles in business,
One of the philosophical tasks of business the moral obligations are obligations that come
ethics - and to my view one that has barely with and from the role. How agape is to handle
been touched - is precisely to distinguish the these impersonal obligations is again not dear.
social responsibilities and obligations of busi- A second difficulty stems from the lack of a
ness from its moral responsibilities and obliga- distinction between charity and justice on the
tions. The job of business is not to structure one hand and the obligatory and the super-
society and solve social problems. These are erogatory on the other. Perhaps agape denies
properly the responsibility of the citizenry as a these distinctions and simply calls one to live
whole, and are best attained through the politi- a worthy life, to reach as high as possible, and
cal process. Social problems are not necessarily so on. But the making of distinctions is im-
business problems, and social issues are not portant to philosophers in business ethics as
necessarily moral issues. Equating social and well as in other areas of philosophy. To the
moral obligations is one of the common con- extent that one ignores these two distinctions,
fusions that those in business ethics should work among others, one loses part of the point of
to untangle. Hence those in business ethics, business ethics. Perhaps here philosophical and
rather than adopting the results of this theologi- theological business ethics actually differ and
cal approach, tend to find the analytical task has part.
to be redone. There is no reason why theologi- (4) The fourth approach I mentioned was
ans could not untangle the issues, though I am liberation theology. 16 Those who identify
not sure whether, from their perspective, they with it seem to swallow whole Marxism's cri-
need to be untangled. tique of capitalism. Undoubtedly in many
(3) The third approach, which takes its countries of Latin American the Church was
inspiration from the New Testament, and too closely connected with the rich and the
which appeals to agape, is more puzzling than Church had and still has to break that identifi-
enlightening to the philosopher. cation. Undoubtedly in many countries the
For it is not at all clear how to apply agape to rich have exploited and continue to exploit
business ethics. Kantians and rule utilitarians are the poor. In some countries foreign corpora-
interested in general rules. Agape is the denial of tions, working with the rich leaders, exploit the
these general rules. One interpretation of the poor and stand in the way of social progress.
agape approach, situation ethics, 14 produced But philosophers in business ethics typically
great confusion. Since an agape approach does wish to determine what exploitation consists
not provide general rules, if it does not slip o f , to sort out and identify instances, and to
into relativism, it at least suffers from the determine how to control it. Their concern
defects either of vagueness or of intuitionism - tends to be specific. In contrast the approach
neither of which is palatable to most philoso- of the liberation theologians seems to be broad-
phers. 15 side or shotgun. All multinationals are attacked,
Agape refers to an individual's approach to as are all forms of private enterprise or owner-
life and to his or her obligations. It concerns ship.
one's relations with one's fellow human beings, Marxism brought into focus a great m a n y of
and the motivation for one's actions. Business the evils of capitalism. But it identifies the cause
ethics, however, focuses on business practices, of these evils with private property - the nature
 Theological Ethics 429

of which has changed significantly since Marx's them save their souls, that is a task they set
day. Moreover, whereever private property has themselves. The rhetoric that they adopt rnay
been done away with and socialism substituted, be Marxist for reasons of politics or of strategy.
it is not clear that the poor are better off or that But whether their approach to the ethics of
justice has replaced oppression. Some of the business is Christian or Marxist is far from
greatest oppressors, in fact, have been leaders of clear.17 This approach is not a moral investiga-
communist revolutions and of communist tion of business in Latin America but a con-
countries. fused religious, political, and ideological con-
The wedding of Marxism with Christianity demnation of business. The activity of multi-
that liberation theology seems to sanction in- nationals is of concern to those in business
volves a poor match. Marx saw religion as the ethics. But philosophers at their best attempt
opium of the people. Liberation theologians, I to distinguish thosecases of immoral activity
assume, do not agree. So they must ~necessarily by multinationals from those that are morally
take portions of Marx and reject others. But in defensible or justifiable or allowable. Liberation
doing so they have not come up with an intel- theologians seem to believe that the basic
lectually consistent or theoretically defensible analysis has already been carried out and that
position. their mission is to help the revolution bring
If liberation theologians seek to overthrow liberation to the masses. Some non-liberation
and replace the free enterprise system with theologians have been critical of their confused
some sort of socialism, why should they be liberation brethren. 18 Such criticism is perhaps
interested in the moral issues within the system part of the task of theologians in business
that they wish to overthrow? Why should they ethics.
try to make moral or make appear moral what is If one accepts the above account of theologi-
basically and ultimately immoral? Why help cal approaches to economic issues, at least a few
preserve the business system? Why mitigate its questions are appropriate.
ills and help make it plausibly respectable and Is liberation theology really theology? Is a
acceptable? To do so is to work against what theological defense of capitalism really theolo-
Marxists wish ultimately to accomplish. Hence gy?19 Can theology be used to justify every
liberation theology is either incompatible with system? Historically the Church has existed
much of business ethics or theoretically con- under many different kinds of economic sys-
fused. tems. It has been able to do so in part because it
Liberation theologians may have a legitimate separated the city of man from the city of God.
task ahead of them in attempting to change the One had to learn to lead a Christian life what-
allegiance of the Church in Latin America from ever one's socio-economic conditions. But when
its ties with the rich elites to solidarity with the theology is used either to justify economic sys-
poor masses. But this is an institutional and tems or conversely to attack them, or worse to
perhaps a religious mission - the latter if the do both depending on who speaks, then the
Church has alienated the masses. That organiza- non-theologian may well be puzzled. The way
tional and religious task should not be confused to decide between such conflicting views used to
with a moral task that is preached to all. To be dogmatic intervention. But that seems no
make the problems of the Church everyone's longer acceptable. Hence many of those outside
problems, or to argue that what is important for view theological approaches to business ethics
the Church and in its interests is important for with some skepticism and confusion. Is there a
everyone, is a non-sequitur. The moral obliga- Christian view of capitalism and of business? If
tions of business come from the nature of there is, then how does it compare with secular
morality not from the needs of the Church. If moral approaches to capitalism and business?
the members of the clergy feel they must attack Does it coincide with any of them or is it sui
the vested interests of society in order to gain generis ?
the allegiance of the people so they can help
430 Richard T. De George

III. Theology and the field of business ethics the theologian and philosopher have similar
research interests in business ethics, then a
The view of many philosophers, and one which dialogue between them may be mutually benefi-
I share, is.that there is only one ethics or morali- cial. From a philosopher's point of view, if there
ty. There is not a Christian ethics, a Jewish is to be such a dialogue on issues of common
ethics, a Moslem ethics, a secular ethics, and so concern or on a division of the field, it should be
on. Ethics is universal. What is right is right for pursued on neutral territory. The neutral terri-
all; what is wrong is wrong for all similarly tory, I suggest, is their common ability to reason.
placed. If I read him correctly, James Gustafson But I do not know whether this territory,
is a contemporary theologian who agrees that since it excludes revelation as in any way
there is only one ethics. But although he claims privileged, appears neutral from a theologian's
there is no specifically Christian ethics he claims point of view.
that "not only can ethics be Christian, but the At the beginning of this paper I characterized
ethics of Christians must be Christian. ''2° He the' field o~ business ethics as ~ field requiring
explains this by saying that religion qualifies research. I believe any field sis an ~cademic
morality by providing "(1) the reason for being field only to the extent that it involves research.
moral, (2) the character of the moral agent, and I outlined some of the areas of research from a
(3) the points of reference used to determine philosophical point of view and claimed that
conduct." 21 the philosophers entering the field had delineated
One implication of his view for business its broad outlines and structure, and were now
ethics is fhat, substantively, there should be no developing various parts that require philosophi-
difference in the conclusions that a philosopher cal analysis or investigation.
and a moral theologian arrive at concerning the In a perc@tive review Donald Jones, one of
morality of an action or practice or moral issue the pioneers in business ethics, noted that there
in business. His view also suggests a role for was little theological publication in the field,
religion in business ethics. compared with the publication by philoso-
Most philosophers in business ethics are not phers. 23 What I have not found from my review
primarily concerned with inculcating morality of the theological literature is whether, and if so,
or developing character, even though they are in what sense, business ethics constitutes a field
concerned with what morality, character, and for the moral theologian. What is business
virtue are. In business ethics they have been ethics according to the moral theologian? What
primarily interested in clarifying issues and is the research that moral theologians see as
determining the rightness or wrongness of ac- needing to be done in the field as they define it?
tions or practices. They do not typically see And what is the relation of that work to what
direct character formation as part of their work. I have described as the philosopher's approach
Nor does this task appear to have a philosophical to business ethics? Philosophers, I noted, arro-
research component. With respect to business gantly carved out for themselves the field of
ethics, is it the task of moral theologians to business ethics, a portion of which was originally
develop character and provide motivation for of concern only to theologians, and another
acting morally? Gustafson's position suggests portion of which was of concern only to profes-
this. Gustafson, moreover, explicates his "points sors of business management. No one, however,
of reference" as involving a "way of life."22 If owns any field of research or knowledge, and no
moral theologians have as their task developing, one can legislate what can or cannot be done.
preaching or inculcating a way of life in busi- There is much research waiting to be done.
ness, these are not tasks that most philosophers Providing the research is well done, all three
in this field set themselves. groups can only benefit from the research any
In addition to the tasks Gustafson suggests, of them does relating to ethics in business.
the theologian may be interested in the same
things as the philosopher in business ethics. If
 Theological Ethics 431

Notes Frequently, moreover, different approaches yield the

same moral principles, e.g., that lying and stealing are
1 See Donald G. Jones, A Bibliography of Business prima facie immoral.
Ethics: 1971-75, (Charlottesville: University Press of 9 John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, (Cambridge, Mass.:
Virginia, 1977); and Donald G. Jones and Helen Troy, Harvard University Press, 1971), pp. 7 - 8 . Charles R.
A Bibliography of Business Ethics: 1976-1980, (Char- Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations,
lottesville: University Press of Viriginia, 1982). These (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), attempts
bibliographies include not only philosophical but also to extend Rawls' theory to the international realm.
theological and business entries. Yet they show the 10 Marx, interpreting the message in his way, calls
number of items written by philosophers during the religion the opium of the people. It gives them solace
decade. in their misery, it turns their minds away from their
2 See Peter Drucker, 'What is "Business Ethics"?', The present plight to fantasize about the hereafter. For
Public Interest 63 (Spring, 1981), pp. 8-36, for a cri- Marx believes that when the poor are no longer op-
tique of business ethics in general. Although he tars the pressed, they will no longer need religion. It will wither
whole field with the same brush, some of his criticism away. There is an aspect of traditional religious thought
hits the mark. that is open to Marx's charge. But of course providing
3 See, for instance, George A. Steiner, Business and solace is not the only function that religion serves.
Society, (New York: Random House, 2nd ed., 1975); 11 When one raises an objection of this type one is

and Fred Luthans, Richard M. Hodgetts, Kenneth R. sometimes told that one has misconceived the Christian
Thompson, Social Issues in Business, (New York: message, that the hereafter is somehow in the present,
MacMillan, 3rd ed., 1980). These and similar books or that one's theological understanding is oldfashioned
might be said to have established the area of social or pre-Vatican II. This is disconcerting because the out-
issues in business, a subdivision of the general field sider labors under the impression that Christianity has a
of business. long history, a great tradition, and that the Church has
4 E.g., Tom L. Beauchamp and Norman E. Bowie, been the guardian of that tradition throughout the
Ethical Theory and Business (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- ages. Vatican II may have updated some of the practices
Hall, 2nd ed., 1983); David Braybrook, Ethics in the of the Catholic Church, but it should not have broken
World of Business, (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Little- its tradition. Its basic theology should not have changed.
field, 1983); Richard T. De George, Business Ethics, If now scholars tell us we have old fashioned notions and
(New York: Macmillan, 2nd ed., 1986); Thomas misunderstand the gospel because we are thinking in
Donaldson and Patricia H. Werhane, Ethical Issues in pre-Vatican II style, we can only wonder why we should
Business, (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 2nd ed., pay so much attention to the post-Vatican II style. If
1983); Manuel G. Velasquez, Business Ethics, (Engle- styles of moral theology come and go, if the post-Vati-
wood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1982). can II moral insights or doctrines are different from the
s Using the terminology of R. M. Hare's Moral Thinking pre-Vatican II ones, what will come next and what is
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), moral demands are one on the outside - or on the inside if one is not a
often intuitive claims. W~en they clash, the competing theologian - to believe?
intuitions can be adjudicated by rising to the level of 12 For a summary and commentary on many of the
critical thinking. social encyclicals see, Philip Hughes, The Pope's New
6 443 U.S. 193 (1979). This Supreme Court decision is Order: A Systematic Summary of the Social Encyclicals
reprinted in part in Donaldson and Werhane, op. cit., and Addresses, from Leo XIII to Plus XII, (London:
pp. 321-333. Burns, Oates & Washbourne, Ltd, 1942). See also David
7 Reverse discrimination has been dealt with by philoso- J. O'Brien and Thomas A. Shannon (eds.), Renewing the
phers other than those engaged in business ethics. See, Earth: Catholic Documents on Peace, Justice and Libera-
for instance, Alan H. Goldman, Justice and Reverse tion, (Garden City: Image Books, 1966); and John Paul
Discrimination, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, II, On Human Work (Laborem Exercens), September 14,
1979). But much of this work fits nicely into the field, 1981.
and the topic is one that is often dealt with in the la The encyclicals are consistent in rejecting atheistic
business ethics texts. communism. They are more ambiguous with respect to
8 Some of those in business ethics prefer a deontologi- both socialism and capitalism. Leo XIII in Quod Aposto-
cal approach, some a teleological approach, some a Iici Muneris, defends private property and attacks 'So-
pluralistic approach. The reciprocal relation of business cialists, Communists and Nihilists,' (Renewing the Earth,
ethics and general ethics applies, whatever the approach. p. 39). He attacks communism as well in Divini Redemp-
432 Richard T. De George

toris. In Rerum Novarum he again attacks socialism as especially of Matthew 25:31-46; and Avery Dulles,
well as uncontrolled capitalism. S.J., 'The Meaning of Faith Considered in Relationship
14 Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics: The New Morali- to Justice', in John C. Haughey, S.J. (ed.), The Faith
ty, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966). that Does Justice: Examining the Christian Sources
1s For one philosopher's views on this issue, see William for Social Change, (New York: Paulist Press, 1975,
K. Frankena 'The Ethics of Love Conceived as an Ethics pp. 40-42).
of Virtue', The Journal of Religious Ethics I (Fall, 19 E.g., the theological defense of capitalism in Michael
1973), pp. 21-36. Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, (New
16 See, Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theory of Liberation, York: A Touchstone Book, 1982).
(Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1973); 'The Ledellin 20 James M. Gustafson, Can Ethics Be Christian?,
Conference Documents', Renewing the Earth, pp. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1975), p. 17.
547-579. 21 Ibid., p. 173.
17 I do not know of liberation theologians who have 22 Ibid., p. 178.
entered the debate over whether there is a Marxist 23 Donald Jones, 'Teaching Business Ethics: State of
ethics and if so what it consists of. See, for instance, the Art and Normative Criticism', Annual of the Society
Marx, Justice and History, edited by Marshall Cohen, of Christian Ethics, 1981, pp. 185-215. See also Donald
Thomas Nagel and Thomas Scanlon, (Princeton: Prince- Jones, 'The Promise of Business: An Intersection Be-
ton University Press, 1980); and Marx and Morality, tween Religion and Business', in Donald G. Jones (ed.),
edited by Kai Nielsen and Steven C. Patten, (Guelph, Business, Religion and Ethics, (Cambridge, Mass.: Oel-
Ontario: Canadian Association for Publishing in Philoso- geschlager, Gunn & Hain, 1982), pp. 207-236.
phy, 1981).
is For some criticisms by theologians see, Richard J. Philosophy Department,
Niebanck, Economic Justice: An Evangelical Perspective, University o f Kansas,
Luterhan Church in America: Division for Mission in
Lawrence, KS 66045,
America, 1980, pp. 62-86 in which he attacks libera-
U.S.A.
tion theologians for their theological interpretations,