Motivating Moral Corporate Behavior

Business ethics, ethics training, moral character, ethical fallacies, ethical motives

Abstract

Although companies are institutionalizing ethics, ethical infractions continue unceasingly, causing questions as to where ethical emphasis is going awry. Suggests that business people need not only the intellect but also the will to do the right thing in the face of temptation. Proposes several reasons why business people should want to take the moral high road, including the fact that usually ethical behavior proves to be profitable in the long run. However, such a pragmatic consideration isn't sufficient to motivate a person of ethical character. The ethical person chooses the moral course of action regardless of personal sacrifice. It is such virtuous persons business leaders should be hiring and cultivating in ethical mentoring and training which instills an absolutist (not relativist) philosophy and reinforces the importance of willpower. Uses an advertising case study to illustrate how common ethical fallacies can uncovered and dispelled among employees.

Author information

Introduction to the problem

Historically, few people appreciated the pervasiveness of moral dilemmas in business decisions, and few business people were adequately trained to balance their business interests with the underlying moral issues, to avoid the fallacy of putting profits above principles. Yet, a key idea from the 1980's business best seller In Search of Excellence was that organizational excellence must be evaluated not only from an economic perspective but also from a moral viewpoint. Discussions of ethics in business have now been big business for over a dozen years. Today we are having the most lively ethics discussions since ancient Greece over 2300 years ago when philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle tackled questions of right and wrong. Companies are institutionalizing ethics through formal structures such as codes of conduct; reporting mechanisms like ethics compliance officers, hot lines, and whistle blowing; organizational structures like ethics and social responsibility committees, ethics advisory councils, and judicial boards; and control devices such as social and ethics audits and performance evaluations which contain ethical criteria.

Moreover, ethics training programs are popping up across the corporate landscape. Typically led by either internal ethics directors/officers or outside ethics consultants, they are designed for upper and middle management as well as (less frequently) lower-level employees. Using means to generate discussion such as hypothetical or real case studies, videos, and role playing, their objectives are to instill ethical awareness, uncover and investigate ethical issues, discuss criteria for ethical decision making, and encourage “cognitive moral development.” At a minimum, ethics training can help already ethical people to better face the moral dilemmas that arise in the business world since it assures they have already put some thought into how they would handle these challenging situations in advance rather than on the spot, where it is too easy to give in to temptation, allowing reason to be overridden by passion. It is well known that many people become involved in white collar crime not out of greed or malevolence but rather out of weakness; they drift or stumble over the ethical line in the sand rather than crossing over it purposively.

The skeptics continue to question whether all this consciousness-raising activity is reducing the rate of ethical infractions in the marketplace. Along with Plato they ask: “Can virtue be taught?” Business executives continue to be one of the lowest ranked professional categories according to Gallup polls. The empirical evidence isn't encouraging as the business pages continue to read like crime sheets. Sensational headlines have been generated by major organizations like Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corporation, Sears Roebuck & Company, Archers Daniel Midland, and Cendant. There are a lot of people who passed through ethics programs now rotting in prisons.

Cynicism also prevails due to the “business is war” mentality. This philosophy is held by basically “good guys” who are moral in their personal lives but are convinced that business is a game, sport, or even war, governed by its own rules of fairness, and therefore must be played outside the realm of individual morality and societal mores (“All's fair in love and war!”). Too many business people believe that to be victorious on the business battlefield you must leave your personal morals at the business' door when you check in each morning. We hear such pragmatic maxims as: “It's survival of the fittest,” “Might makes rich,” “It's dog eat dog, and the dog that snaps fastest gets the bone,” “Do whatever you have to do to get the job done,” and (my personal favorite), “Go ahead and do it, just don't get caught/don't tell me about it.”

However, this thinking sets up a false dichotomy between one's business life and personal life. You cannot neatly partition your life into work and personal, or business and pleasure. These two spheres do at times overlap, and what a person does on “company time” often spills over into their private life. The term “business ethics” suggests a different (lower) set of standards than, say, “medical ethics,” but in fact the same moral standards should be applied in the business domain as in other realms since we still have human beings causing potential harms to other human beings. Being a businessperson is not license to do things you are not permitted to do as an everyday person.

The bottom line, so to speak, is that business leaders must impart the value of values, converting the moral agnostics and unbelievers to a conviction of the worth of virtue in the marketplace. This requires more than just the head knowledge – it also necessitates heart knowledge. Aristotle said that virtue consists not merely in knowing what is right but in having the will to do what is right, i.e., the power to carry out the mind's judgment into action. The apostle Paul lamented, “The good that I wish I do not do; but I practice the very evil I do not wish.” Former Watergate conspirator and Prison Fellowship founder Chuck Colson has noted that “ reason alone is no match for passion . The fundamental problem with learning how to reason through ethical solutions is that it doesn't give you a mechanism to override your natural tendency to do what is wrong.” Knowledge of the good does not guarantee a commitment to the good. Even though some people know the ethical rules and how to make an ethical decision in theory, when the rubber meets the road they experience emotional highjackings.

Business people need not only the intellect but also the will to do the right thing. Short of religious regeneration, can the solution lie in on-the-job education? I say “yes” if business leaders succeed in creating a felt need for ethics in business. The $64,000 question for us to help our employees and coworkers answer is “Why should individual business people want to be ethical?”

nderstanding why businesspeople should want to be ethical

Let us begin with the reasons for ethics in business that are easiest to object to through those which even the hard-nosed pragmatist finds difficult to dispute. First, we can appeal to a sense of altruism , the love of one's fellow humans that leads to deemphasis on one's self interest and focuses instead on the interests of others. Altruistic acts lead to that “warm glow” and sense of moral satisfaction that comes from helping (or, at least, not harming) others. Moral philosophers down through the ages have accentuated “constrained self interest,” which is bound by what is perceived as right, proper, moral, or appropriate. The Judeo-Christian tradition sums it up in the maxims “Love thy neighbor as thyself” and “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” Altruists believe that happiness is a condition of the soul that comes from self-denial by giving oneself to others and by constantly doing what is right. In fact, the marketing concept suggests that to succeed financially in business one must first serve the customers; the economic and ethical raison d' etre for a business enterprise is to honestly serve others.

But what of the misanthropes who are only concerned with self? Ethical mentors can explain to them that we should be ethical for the sake of society . Unethical business practices lead to societal costs which are born in part by everyone who wishes to survive and thrive in that society. Deceptive practices increase transactions costs, which in turn raise business costs, thereby reducing corporate profits and/or increasing consumer prices (and we are all consumers). For instance, many service providers “forget” to report cash payments to the IRS, thereby increasing everyone's taxes to make up the shortfall. Thik of the hassle you have t g through returning mrrechandise as a store: they must poen and inspect the boxes to make sure you are really returning everything. Do you like being frisked at a concert because some people like to try to sneak in booze or dope? A moral system is mandatory for an orderly society and earning the public's trust. Deceptive marketing practices reduce consumer confidence in the marketing system. When the business system collapses in the absence of morals we end up in a Hobbesian “war of all against all.” Commenting on American's ethical standards in the nineteenth century, French historian and politician Alexis de Tocqueville declared that the nation had become great because it was good.

Too, it can be argued that morally upright behavior can help fend off government regulation , something which the sane business person seeks to minimize in most instances, preferring the “invisible hand” of the free marketplace to the heavy, visible hand of government intervention in that market. Excessive government regulations increase compliance costs (bureaucratic red tape, increased business taxes, higher prices and consequent lower profits). A heavy-handed, paternalistic government guardian restricts the American ideal of freedom, which can prevail only if most citizens believe that economic and social justice prevail, not to the extent that society is layered with rules and regulations. Ben Franklin said it best: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” Overzealous government regulatory agencies breathing down our backs, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and OSHA, are monsters of our own making. Our democratic way of life depends upon the willingness of individuals to behave according to high ethical and moral standards. Government cannot decree goodness.

However, some might think that one person (themselves) acting unethically alone can't “make a difference.” They might be better convinced by a reminder that we should act ethically for the sake of our conscience , that still, small voice inside our heads that creates a sense of sin leading to shame and following the commission of immoral acts. We should be able to pass the “sleep test”; it is unpleasant to lose sleep at night over abandoning loyalty to one's own principles. We should want to feel good about ourselves, as should our families and friends. As they say, “Virtue is its own reward,” and doing right will soothe our conscience.

While this point will appeal to those with decent moral character, unfortunately some peoples' conscience is seared – for them the only definition of “value” worthy of consideration is the economic worth of commercial products. How do we appeal to the moral eunuchs with “mammon uber alles” tattooed on their shriveled hearts? A fourth line of argument is to strike the fear of God into those hearts. Workers need to be reminded of those long-forgotten Sunday school lessons that say we are ultimately personally responsible to a God who will on Judgment Day hold us accountable for how we lived our lives (”payday someday”). A well-known Bible verse poses an important question: “What good is it for a man to gain the whole world (a top career and fat salary) and yet lose or forfeit his very soul?” (That is the real bottom line.) The Old Testament book of Deuteronomy proclaims: “For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.” Ask your co-workers whether worldly wealth and power are worth having God abhor you.

Nonetheless, some will be willing to make that tradeoff, either because they don't take God seriously or because they disbelieve in God. For these individuals, the only appeal left that might work is Adam Smith's enlightened self-interest , a pragmatic, temporal reason to take the high road. Contrary to clichés, nice guys finish first in the business race; there is a “return on integrity.”

Why is this? First, ethical behavior tends to be profitable in the long run. One of King Solomon's biblical proverbs declares that “Treasures of wickedness profit not,” and another exhorts, “The riches you get by dishonesty soon disappear but not before they lead you into the jaws of death.” Experience, anecdotal evidence, and empirical documentation reveal that “good ethics is good business,” “honesty is the best policy,” and “you can make money while maintaining your principles.” Doing good and doing well aren't mutually exclusive but rather are complimentary; doing good can be good for you and your business; you can make more money while maintaining your principles. Biblical proverbs say, “Ill-gotten gains do not profit” and “Treasures of wickedness profit nothing.” A modern maxim declares that “Crime doesn't pay.”

The reason is simply that market forces provide financial incentives for ethical behavior. In the long run, due to the tendency for the free enterprise system to self regulate, the business person who eyeballs only the bottom line regardless of morals, while perhaps prospering in the short run, harms the firm in the long run by tarnishing the image of the business world, his industry, his profession, and his organization (e.g., negative publicity from consumer boycotts, class action lawsuits, etc.). For instance, it is well known in marketing circles that satisfaction is a function of fulfilled expectations and desires. Dishonest advertising which exaggerates the product's performance will raise expectations to unrealistically high levels which can't be fulfilled, resulting in dissatisfaction and the ills which follow (no repeat patronage, negative word of mouth, complaints to government agencies, etc.) Thus, in pursuing today's profits immorally we might be sacrificing tomorrow's business success. Recall that the marketing concept views customer-sensitivity as a means to the ends of enhanced financial performance.

While being socially responsible and ethical often entails short-run pain, it usually ultimately results in long-term gain. A promotional mailing from Business Ethics magazine points out some examples : seventy five per cent of customers would switch brands to be associated with a good cause, eighty per cent of the time low-polluting companies are better financially performers than high-polluting ones, and the socially screened Domini Index has outperformed the S&P for the past five years. Managerial decisions might not always be optimal, but they should always be ethical. The success of any business rests heavily upon its reputation, and the cream usually rises to the top with the truth emerging. As the adages suggest, “The chickens come home to roost,” and “What goes around comes around.” The idea that the good you do comes back to you is suggested by the marketing concept and is written in the Bible: "As ye sow, so shall ye reap.” The same social and spiritual laws apply whether we are in the walls of business or the halls of a house of worship. Simply, moral behavior builds trust, which attracts customers, employees, suppliers, and distributors, not to mention earning the public's goodwill. Conversely, immoral behavior chases these various groups away.

Second, enlightened managers realize that unethical actions can result in punishment , which can be monetarily costly in the form of fines and litigation, reputationally costly in the form of bad publicity for the organization, and personally costly in the form of imprisonment.

Third, self-interested business people should understand that their personal reputation is at stake. Shame from being caught in an unethical act leads to a decline in one's human dignity. Nobody wants a reputation as a sleaze. One of King Solomon's biblical proverbs warns, “If you must choose between a good reputation and great wealth, choose a good reputation.” Workers must be admonished to take their reputation seriously. It will follow them wherever they go, in both their business and personal lives, so they must nourish it as their most valuable asset.

Needed: people of good character

However, if the selfish motive of prospering via moral behavior is the only driver of ethical actions, that person is acting wisely and prudentially but not morally since the motives are not pure. What really matters is a person's character . Since President Clinton's capers were publicly exposed the mantra we've repeatedly heard has been “character counts.” Character is a person's inner constitution that causes that person to be able to distinguish between right and wrong and then have the will to choose the right thing despite the possibility of personal sacrifice. The ancient Greeks understood the classic virtues of a person of good character to be fortitude (the courage to persevere in the face of adversity), temperance (self-restraint in the face of temptation), prudence (practical wisdom and the ability to make wise choices), and justice (fairness, honesty, and lawfulness in society). Western tradition added to these virtues such as patience, sympathy, benevolence, generosity, self-discipline, selflessness, and others. To these, Saint Paul , in a letter to the Galatians, added the character traits of faith, hope, love, peace, and kindness.

A Communications Briefings newsletter reports that a survey of over 15,00 people reveals that the top trait found in effective leaders was believed to be honesty (87%), followed by forward-looking (71%), inspirational (8%), and being competent (58%). Honest, credible leaders kept promises, followed through on commitments, believed in the inherent self-worth of others, admitted their mistakes, and created a climate for learning by trust and openness. In short, they were people of character.

Managerial recommendations

So what action steps can business leaders take? First, ethical character needs to be, and reportedly is increasingly being, used as a hiring criterion. Executives need to probe candidates for important characteristics like self-discipline, openness, and other virtues by posing hypothetical dilemmas to potential hires. In these, the moral employee will ask “What is the best for others?” (the company, customers, suppliers, etc.), not “What is best for me?”

Second, executives should mentor peers and subordinates by their own words and (most important) deeds. They should lead by example, not just “talking the talk” but “walking the walk. One of the most important influences on an individual and for creating a moral corporate culture is the behavior of superiors and peers. Business leaders' example serves as a model and a message-sender to all employees. Too, written policy statements on social responsibility and the moral dimensions of the business need to be drafted and enforced. Periodic meetings of management to discuss the implementation of these and to revise them where necessary should be held.

Third, business leaders need to cultivate ethical sensitivity. Ethical sensitivity is a personal characteristic, which enables people to recognize the presence of an ethical issue and its importance. To raise employees' ethical sensitivity periodic ethics training exercises can be undertaken. These are premised on the idea that some people are unaware that some of their decisions have an ethical content and that they might behave differently if that ethical makeup were made known to them.

The literature is rich in business ethics case studies, which can be used in ethical training. These need not be long and involved. To illustrate their use and to point out some common ethical reasoning fallacies that by and large stem from a relativist worldview, the following example is a short case I wrote for my Advertising Management course. By probing employees and potential hires for what they view as the ethical issues (situations that require a person to choose among several actions that must be evaluated as right or wrong) you can discover if they commit some of the most common fallacies in ethical reasoning:

Betty, who has been employed for three years as a copywriter for HK&M, a mid-size advertising agency specializing in consumer packaged goods, has been feverishly working for the past week on a new ad campaign for Great State's wheat flakes, a regional breakfast cereal. The account has been with the agency for several years. Although Charlie, the brand manager on this cereal, has been pleased with the agency's work over the years, the old positioning, which stressed taste attributes and fun-filled family breakfasts, has become tired and dated. Marketing research shows a high degree of consumer wearout (people are tired of the campaign, even annoyed with it, and are ready for something fresh). Betty's task was to rejuvenate the brand via repositioning it to take advantage of and tie into the health trend, notably the interest in eating "good-for-you" food as well as in physical fitness. The brand was to be pitched as an important part of an active, healthy lifestyle.

Betty thought she had come up with the perfect theme line: "Great State's wheat flakes will give a great start to your active day," and she had developed what she believed were some clever scenarios for TV and print ads featuring the product being consumed after workouts in health clubs, following a morning jog, after a snowboarding expedition, and even while roller blading. However, upon reviewing her proposals, Charlie said that while the vignettes were on target because targeted customers would relate well to them, the slogan was off base. He wanted something more specific and hard hitting, and so Charlie developed the theme line, "Great Wheat can't be beat. No other wheat flake offers you more vitamins and minerals and fewer calories." Betty tried to kindly tell Charlie that this was misleading because it implies that Great State's brand is healthier than most, if not all, of the others, whereas actually all wheat flake cereals are parity products--they are virtual photocopies of each other in terms of taste, texture, and, most important here, composition and therefore nutritional value. In fact, blind taste tests have shown that between 70 and 80 per cent of consumers cannot identify their favorite brand of wheat flakes and that loyalty levels are low -- with price incentives consumers will readily switch brands. Charlie, obviously irritated, explained that his tag line was an honest exaggeration, what the advertising trade termed "puffing," and that consumers are expected to see through it. He felt that it offered the point of difference needed to increase brand loyalty.

Betty, feeling uneasy, later that day approached her boss Steve, the copy chief at HK&M, asking his counsel. Steve explained that Charlie's suggested slogan is what is called an "implied superiority" claim. Steve explained that such claims are commonly made for commodity brands. They stake out a parity position, which does not claim to be superior to, but only as good as, other brands, while using copy that suggests or implies superiority for the named brand. He cited several current and classical examples, such as "nothing else cleans better," "the maximum fluoride protection in any toothpaste,” "you can't beat the savings” and "you can't buy a more effective pain reliever." In effect, these brands are claiming that they are unsurpassed. However, none claims to be truly better. Betty, recalling several other such implied superiority claims she had recently seen, realized that it was, indeed, a popular technique.

Steve reminded Betty that there is a distinction between deceptive advertising, which creates false impressions and misleads a consumer acting reasonably, and "trade puffing," which is exaggerated praise of the product, viewed as acceptable in a society of the superlative. Consumers are assumed to see through the exaggeration or at least engage in a "willing suspension of disbelief." He explained to her that whereas deceptive advertising is illegal, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which monitors national advertising for accuracy and fairness in claims, views puffery as legitimate.

"What's more," Steve concluded somewhat sarcastically, "using your line of reasoning, Betty, we shouldn't at all advertise any parity products, since all brand advertising is designed to create a brand distinction in the buyer's mind. Advertising is necessary to differentiate yourself from the pack of imitators." Betty thought that, in fact, Steve's taunting comment might, indeed, have some merit, but she still felt uneasy.

Clearly, Betty faces an ethical dilemma regarding whether or not it is ethical for her to go ahead and run the potentially misleading comparison advertising suggested by the client, Charlie and supported by Steve, the agency copy chief. Current employees and prospective hires can be asked to put themselves in Betty's shoes in order to take their ethical temperature and see if they succumb to some of the most commonly committed ethical fallacies. Ethical issues (situations where there is possible violation of ethical standards which could lead to potential harms to others) to be raised include those involving the advertising claim as well as organizational issues.

Here are some issues and suggested “talking points” to discuss on the morality of the proposed comparative advertising claim:

•  Are implied superiority claims such as those examples in the case, even though literally true,

misleading/deceptive, or are they merely honest exaggeration ("puffery"/"puffing") which consumers will see through? Deception involves: (1) materially false advertising (materially false, i.e., there is a claim-fact discrepancy -- not the case here) or (2) misleading advertising, whereby false subjective consumer impressions or perceptions are created -- possibly the case here. Consumer research could be used to determine whether a significant number of buyers are fooled or whether they merely willingly suspend their disbelief. If consumers are fooled, the comparative claim is unethical since it misleads them; if people are willingly suspending their disbelief then no deception is involved and making a comparative claim doesn't violate any moral standard. Furthermore, if the claim provides useful information for informed decision making, it is morally justifiable. However, if it is used simply to bash the competitor with the intent to damage their image or reputation via derogatory statements, as seems to be the case here, then the advertising could be viewed as a malicious violation of fair play.

•  Because implied superiority claims are commonly used (perhaps by Great State 's competitors too) does

that make them acceptable? A common fallacy is that because everyone (or at least many people) does something that makes it morally acceptable. Relativists (also known as situation ethicists ) would say that morality can be determined by what the majority believes or by what many others are doing. In general, relativists believe that the correctness of a particular action depends on the situation. Morals are relative to: (1) the individual (“You must do what's right for you”; “What's right for you might not be right for me”), (2) the circumstances (e.g., a store can install TV cameras and one-way mirrors in dressing rooms to curtail shoplifting; theft is justified if you cannot earn enough money to support yourself), and (3) the society's norms and values ( e.g., if most people believe sexual intercourse outside of marriage by consenting adults is all right, then it is; if the majority find it acceptable to tell “little white lies” then so be it).

However, relativism has declined in acceptability among ethicists in recent years due to the many problems it raises: it often means no consensus if people and societies clash in their ethical beliefs; it leads to uncertainty since right and wrong differ over time, place, and people; it is often morally impotent and corrupt as rationalizations and pragmatic considerations override morality (e.g., “It is all right as long as no one finds out and no one gets hurt,” but what if someone does find out or get hurt?); and it is logically inconsistent to make pronouncements such as “All truth is relative” (an absolute statement) and “The only thing that is absolute is that nothing is absolute.”

Absolutists , who hold to fixed standards of right and wrong, would say that ethical standards are immutable regardless of what is currently popular. Absolutists believe in definitive, objective, universal, unchanging standards which hold true over circumstances, time, place, and person. They contend that there are certain behaviors that are inherently right or wrong regardless of the individual or culture.

What is the source of absolute standards? Although we can look to those of world cultures that thrived for long periods of time, society makes its decisions in its own wisdom and for the welfare of its own members. These are still rules made by fallible humans; society might be right about drug abuse but wrong on abortion (or vice versa). The best source is the moral standards decreed by the great world religions. It goes back to the Greeks and Plato's saying that if there were no transcendent ideals, there could be no concord, justice, and harmony in society, which cannot survive without an ultimate source of authority. Cicero believed that there is no justice without God. There is in twenty-three centuries of Western civilization a belief in a transcendental value system. Every society which has abandoned its religious moral base for human reasoning has collapsed violently (e.g., the French Revolution). Absent a religious foundation, morality becomes a matter of personal or societal preference. Whether it was the unknown god of the Greeks, Yahweh of the Old Testament Jews, Jesus Christ of the New Testament, or even the Enlightenment natural law (which, while in some cases denying divine will nevertheless was compatible with it), while they might disagree on the exact nature of God and theological issues such as the requirements for salvation, these religions all agree on the virtuous elements of people of good character outlined above. People of character believe in the unbending adoption of these absolutes. The virtuous pagan, guided by restraints he alone has imposed, is a greater rarity than the yellow-bellied sapsucker. Dostoyevsky in Brothers Karamazov had one of the characters exclaim, “Ah, if there is no God, everything is permissible.” George Washington, in his farewell address to Congress in 1796, said, "And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." Even Nietzche, who believed that morality is not a problem, predicted that it would become a problem when the people discovered that without religion there is no morality.

But, I digress. The main point for the case and ethics is that the “everybody is doing it” argument is morally indefensible. It reminds one of mom asking the child who argues what he's doing is okay because Billy is doing it, “If Billy jumped off the bridge, would you jump off the bridge?”

•  Because puffing and implied superiority claims are legal does that make them proper? The legality

argument is another common fallacy in ethical reasoning. Legality is not synonymous with ethicality, for civil laws, which are established by fallible humans, simply reflect a general consensus of what society believes is morally right. Laws can be immoral (e.g., laws allowing capital punishment and abortion are currently controversial, and slavery as well as “separate but equal” facilities were once legal in the U.S. ). Too, because they are limited to a particular time and place, laws can be inconsistent over time (e.g., legality of advertising various “sin products” on TV) and place (e.g., state laws often conflict, as do laws in the international arena). St. Thomas Aquinas said, “An evil law is no law.” Montesque believed that, “We should never create by law what we can accomplish by morality.” Generally, the law provides a moral minimum and is reactive, telling us what ought to not be done, rather than proactive, explaining what should be done in terms of virtuous behavior. Aquinas declared, “Human laws do not forbid all vices from which the virtuous abstain but only the most grievous vices from which it is possible for the majority to abstain and chiefly those which are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained.” The low standard of the law was perhaps best recently illustrated by President Clinton's claim in his deposition about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky that his answers were “legally accurate,” although most people agree that his actions were morally wrong. Thus, although the FTC does allow puffery and implied superiority claims, this is not sufficient justification for their use by Great State .

•  Does the fact that Wonderwipes is a small brand just starting out against a large, entrenched competitor

justify making the suggested comparison? This too is a relativistic justification, in effect a rationalization. To make such ethical distinctions among players is discriminatory, and where do you draw the line on doling out ethical handicaps? Wrong behavior is wrong regardless of who or what you are.

•  Does the possibility that competitors will respond to Wonderwipe's comparison advertising by

improving their graphics, thereby benefiting consumers, justify making the suggested comparison? This is the worst kind of utilitarian thinking (a moral act results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people), in effect asserting that the ends justify the means. If society (consumers in this case) ends up with a net gain in satisfaction, then supposedly the act is justifiable. However, ends don't necessarily justify means; in effect, this says, “Let us do evil, that good may come.” Using this logic, it would be okay to have prostitutes work out of church basements if the money was to be donated to the poor or for a student to cheat on an exam so as to get a good grade and hence land a decent job. Yet, some studies suggest that basically honest people under pressure to achieve bottom-line results, which are believed to be what is most important, commit most unethical acts in business.

There are also several organizational issues to be discussed:

•  Does a client have the right to overrule the copywriter's ideas? Certainly -- the client can even fire the

ad agency if dissatisfied. But exercising this right might not be the morally right thing to do.

•  Is the copywriter obligated to accept the client's ideas, even when she disagrees or they are in conflict

with her own values? While she might not have the power to override the ideas, she has the moral obligation to speak out if she feels the client is wrong. Every honorable individual has the obligation to speak out against wrongdoing, to say that such and such is wrong and should not be done. However, in practice, when the rubber meets the road, this is not always easy. Yet, one of the cardinal virtues is fortitude, having the courage of one's convictions, even at personal cost. In fact, it has been said, “A principle isn't a principle until it costs you something.” Although it is much easier to “go along to get along,” having integrity, while entailing sacrifice and struggle, makes life ultimately more joyful and peaceful.

•  Is a copywriter obligated to abide by her superior's judgment? Organizationally, perhaps, but morally

not if she feels that the judgment is not morally correct. Blind loyalty and going along just because the boss says to is to succumb to the plea of the Nuhrenburg war crimes trials defendants that “we were just following orders.” As we have learned from the rule of despotic leaders such as Hitler and Stalin, when the authorities are wrong we should not obey them. If this is true at the government level, how much more so at the organizational level.

People of character look for the creative way out when there is an ethical dilemma. They know that economic security is not worth the psychological torment that normally follows a wrong choice. Ask your employees or potential hires what they would do if they were Betty and genuinely felt that going along with the client's wishes would be wrong. Although quitting might be ethical, it might not be feasible, especially if Betty were helping to support a family. Better solutions for Betty could include: arguing more persuasively against using an implied superiority claim; explaining that it would be ineffective (a pragmatic argument) and/or immoral (which could be a hard sell but does demonstrate integrity); developing copy which focuses solely on the positive virtues of Wonderwipes and hoping this will please Charlie; ignoring Charlie and Steve and proceeding with her original slogan; developing a new slogan which is straightforward yet which might please both Charlie and Steve; suggesting that Charlie improve the quality of his product and then advertise this, benefiting him in the long run; suggesting running the proposed campaign but not directly naming the competitor (e.g., the “leading brand” approach); and asking to be allowed to resign working on the account since to continue to do so would conflict with her personal values.

Conclusion

Knowing what is ethical is not all that difficult. Simple rules of thumb can suffice in most situations: “Would I do it to my friends and family?,” “Would I feel comfortable explaining my action to my friends and family?' and “When in doubt, don't.” Doing what is ethical is another matter. One must have not only the knowledge but also the commitment to doing the right thing. Plato and Aristotle understood reason to be the master of passion. Unfortunately, there is a wide gap between knowing and doing in the moral realm. It is in our nature to flirt with compromising our principles. For instance, although people know that smoking and excessive drinking are harmful, yet some persist in this behavior; while we realize that consumption of junk food is unhealthy, we continue to indulge. A goal of philosophy was (and is) for reason to control passion so people can make right choices. When passion gets control, reason becomes its slave, and we rationalize our known wrongdoing, deluding ourselves in the process. An employee's ethical instruction has to focus on changing behavior. Knowing that a given action is wrong does not do any good if we lack the motivation to take an alternative course of action.

Where does such motivation come from? Personally, I'd say that the greatest motivator is belief in and a personal relationship with God. Although Paul at times found himself practicing the evil he wished to shun, in his letter to the Romans he concluded that by calling upon the Lord for strength, God could rescue him from his “body of death.” A lot of ethical motivation is, I believe, an internal phenomenon, which is why it is important to consider ethical criteria when hiring people. But, nurture can supplement nature. I believe that an instilling an understanding and fomenting an internalization of the above arguments for ethical behavior along with a resolve to setting a good example by words and deeds, along with commitment to an absolutist philosophy of ethics can be helpful. Such ethical tutelage will help in training not just the mind but the will. Willpower is won't power.

Perhaps I'm a bit idealistic, but if we work on this motivation in our selves and in the employees that we carefully hire, perhaps tomorrow's business headlines will read less like a police blotter.