Everyday Ethics

We live in a very bizarre world where what we purchase has phenomenal moral implications, and we are often ignorant of the way in which what we buy affects the moral universe. The Enron scandal of a few years ago and the current outrage over Exxon’s continuously rising profits indicate that we do hold corporations to a certain moral standard, and we are bothered when that standard is not upheld. But do we have the right to do this, and if so, how do we tell corporations what we want them to do?

These are tough questions, but the question of whether or not we have any right to hold corporations accountable can be dealt with easily. The actions of corporations generally are regulated by the social ethic, while the behavior of individual corporations is in the realm of professional ethics. If a corporation’s professional ethics do not line up with the social ethic, it would seem that the corporation will struggle to be profitable. In short, we have a right to expect something of corporations, morally appropriate behavior, because they expect something from us, spending.

If we believe that the social ethic gives us license to regulate the behavior of corporations, the next question is how we make our expectations known. The most obvious way is by supporting laws that enforce minimal standards of appropriate conduct. The first step in forcing corporate responsibility is to vote for people who are willing to hold corporations accountable.

The most powerful way to push a moral agenda on corporations, however, is by making purchases that reflect our moral standards. If you think Exxon should not be making record profits while the nation pays through the nose for gasoline, not buying gas from them is a good way to make that known. By buying with ethics in mind, you can send a compelling message in the language that business can understand very well.

As our title indicates, there is a problem with this notion of using choice to force corporate responsibility. First, in many cases we do not really have much choice about what we buy, though we can always choose whom to buy from. Gasoline, for example, is an essential for many people, and the gasoline industry has done a good job of working together to keep prices roughly comparable. Because CITGO gas is not any cheaper than Exxon, many individuals see little reason chose one over the other. If we want our choices to have moral weight, we need to make them for moral, rather than economic reasons.

In addition, in cases like choosing who to buy gas from, the best choice is actually much more difficult than the choice between Exxon and CITGO. If we truly want to send a moral message to the gasoline industry, the best choice is to stop buying gas so often. If gas consumption dropped 30% instead of 5%, for example, the industry response would be much quicker, and they would likely be forced to abandon their pursuit of record profits in favor of a morally acceptable alternative.

Choice is problematic because it can be very difficult to send the moral message accurately, and in some cases you simply cannot make the choice that you would like to without drastically altering your life. If that is what you are willing to do, more power to you. But if not, make note of the other way to force corporate responsibility and elect officials who not only preach the gospel of corporate responsibility, but also have a record of following through with it. The combination of economic and political pressure can make a compelling case for corporate accountability that choice alone is hard-pressed to provide.

About the Author

Elijah Weber is a graduate student at Bowling Green State University. He holds a Master's degree in philosophy from Colorado State University, and Bachelor’s degrees in sociology and philosophy from Chapman Univerity. He currently lives in Bowling Green, Ohio with his wife Laura, his newborn son Brandon, and his feline life-partner Monte.