Means and Ends !!

Madhuri Malhotra
 Kant Philosophy Demystified
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ2fvTv
tzBM
 Question !!!
• In business ethics, do the means justify the
ends ?
• or do the ends justify the means?
• Is it better to have a set of rules telling you
what you ought to do in any particular
situation and then face the results ?
• OR

• should you worry more about how things are

going to end up and do whatever’s necessary
to reach that goal?
 Caselet
• Until recently, Mr. Smith ran an organic medicine
business.
• His herbal product soothed nausea and remedied
vomiting, especially as suffered by cancer patients.
• He had a problem,…..While his business had been OK’d
by the regulators, some federal agencies hadn’t
approved: on the national level, selling his drug was
breaking the law. On the other hand, not selling his
remedy had a significant downside: affecting people’s
life.
• So when federal agents came knocking on his door, he
had to make a decision.
 When Means Justify Ends
• If the means justify the ends—if you should
follow the rules no matter the
consequences—then when the agents ask Mr.
Smith point blank whether he’s selling the
medicine………the ethical action is to admit it.
• He should tell the truth even though that will
mean the end of his business.
 When Ends justify Means !!!
• On the other hand, if the ends justify the
means—if your ethical interest focuses on the
consequences of an act instead of what you
actually do—then the ethics change.
• Is it what you do that matters, or the
consequences?
• It’s hard to get oriented in ethics
without making a preliminary
decision between these two.
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ2fvTv
tzBM
 Duty Based Ethics !!
• KANT :

• German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–

1804) accepted the basic proposition that a
theory of duties—a set of rules telling us what
we’re obligated to do in any particular
situation—was the right approach to ethical
problems.
• What Do I Owe Myself? Historically
Accumulated Duties to the Self
• Perennial duties
• these are basic obligations we have as human
beings; they’re the fundamental rules telling
us how we should act.
 Duty to our
Perennial self
Duties Duty to
others
 Duty to our self
• Duties to the self begin with our responsibility
to develop our abilities and talents
• The abilities we find within us, aren’t just gifts;
it’s not only a strike of luck that some of us are
born with a knack for math, or an ear for
music, or the ability to solve conflicts between
people into agreements.
• All these skills are also
responsibilities. When we receive them,
they come with the duty to develop them, to
not let them go to waste in front of the TV or
on a pointless job.
• Most of us have something that so few have,
……………………….it’s a shame to waste it;

• it’s a kind of betrayal of our own

uniqueness……….
• This is when ETHICS come in….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bIys6JoE
Dw
MADOFF CASE
 Madoff Case !!!
• What about Andrew Madoff, the cancer sufferer?
• He not only donated money to cancer research
charities but also dedicated his time, serving as
chairman of the Lymphoma Research Foundation
(until his dad was arrested).
• Andrew, as a sufferer, perfectly understood the
misery caused by the disease, and as a wealthy
person, he could muster a serious force against
the suffering. When he did, he fulfilled the duty
to exploit his particular abilities.
 Questions on Madoff case
• Madoff: did he fulfil hid duty towards himself ?
• Did he fulfil his duties towards others ?
• Did he keep his promise ?
• Was Madoiff treating people like ends and not just
means of getting the return on investment ?
• Were Madoff actions following the principle of
“Consistency as per Kant Philosophy ?
• Was Madoff following the golden Rule?
– (Golden ruletreat others as you’d like to be treated. It
forces you to ask how things would work if everyone
else did what you’re considering doing)
 Duties to Others
• Avoid wronging others
• Honesty: duty to tell the truth and not leave
anything important out. (Madoff wronged his
investors by misleading them about what was
happening with their money)
• Respect others: in the Madoff case, when adult
investors asked Madoff where the profits came
from, what they got was more or less a fairy tale.
Madoff invented stories about where the money
came from, he disdained his investors treating
them as unworthy of the truth.
 Duties to others
• Beneficence: The duty to promote the welfare
of others. (Madoff certainly fulfilled this
obligation: every one of them received
constant and lavish amounts of cash. There’s
also beneficence in Andrew’s work for
charitable causes, even if there’s a self-serving
element, too. By contrast, Madoff displayed
little beneficence for his clients.
• Gratitude: Duty to thank and remember
those who help us.
• (Madoff had donated millions of dollars to
charities over the years, not a single person or
representative of a charitable organization
stood up to say something on his behalf.
That’s ingratitude, no doubt.)
• Fidelity: Duty to keep our promises and hold
up our end of agreements.
– (Madoff case ----On the professional side, there’s
the financier who didn’t invest his clients’ money
as he’d promised)
 Immanuel Kant : Theory of DUTIES

• German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–

1804)
• Believed that there is a set of rules telling us
what we’re obligated to do in any particular
situation -------to reach ethical solution
 Kant’s Categorical Imperative
• An imperative is something you need to do.
• A hypothetical imperative is something you
need to do, but only in certain circumstances;
• Example : I have to eat, but only in those
circumstances where I’m hungry.
• A categorical imperative, by contrast, is
something you need to do all the time……..
there are ethical rules that don’t depend on
the circumstances.
Kant’s first version or expression of the
categorical imperative
• Act in a way that the rule for your action could be
universalized
• When you’re thinking about doing something, this
means you should imagine that everyone did it all the
time.
• Is there a world you can imagine where everyone does
this thing that you’re considering at every opportunity?
• Madoff case --- Take the case of Madoff asking himself,
“Should I lie to keep investor money flowing in?” What
we need to do is imagine this act as universalized:
everyone lies all the time. Just imagine that.
• Ex: Bribe …changed the nation’s culture
• What Kant’s categorical imperative shows is
that lying cannot be universalized.
• The act of lying can’t survive in a world where
everyone’s just making stuff up all the time.
Since no one will be taking anyone else
seriously, you may try to sell a false story but
no one will be buying.
• Madoff case:
• If Madoff has to make a basic decision: should
I lie to investors to keep my operation afloat?
The answer is no.
• According to the categorical imperative, it
must be no, because lying cannot be
universalized and therefore it’s immoral.
• The first expression of the categorical
imperative……act in such a way that the rule
for your action could be universalized
• Golden ruletreat others as you’d like to be
treated. It forces you to ask how things would
work if everyone else did what you’re
considering doing.
 Second Version of the Categorical
Imperative

• Treat people as an end, and never as a means

to an end.
• To treat people as ends, not means is to never
use anyone to get something else.
• People can’t be tools or instruments, they
can’t be things you employ to get to what you
really want.
 Ex:
• Striking up a friendship with Mr. Rex because you
really want to meet his father who happens to be
a manager at the advertising company you
desperately want to work for.
• Madoff case: Bernard madoff used the money
from each new investor to pay off the last one.
That means every investor was nothing but a
means to an end: every one was nothing more
than a way to keep the old investors happy and
attract new ones.
 Key takeaways !!!
• The first expression of Kant’s categorical imperative
requires that ethical decisions be consistent. (can a
particular action be performed by everyone ? Eg: lying
is immoral because if we allow everyone to lie, there
will be no place for truth.
• The second expression of Kant’s categorical imperative
requires that ethical decisions treat others as ends and
not means.
• Universality: if the principles of our actions be
acceptable by everyone ? This overcomes the risk of
subjectivity as indicated in utilitarian ethics.
• Universality is also termed as New York times
test !
• If you would be uncomfortable that your
actions were reported in the press, you can
be fairly sure that they are doubtful moral
status.