Autonomy In The Article Analysis Of Kant's Article

Although Friedman never in the article uses the term “autonomy” in the article, it is clear that the act of an executive using corporate assets to contribute to social policies violates shareholders’ autonomy. In Kant’s Deontology, this would imply that the shareholders’ are being used as means to the end of a social good, which is a violation of the second formulation of the categorical imperative (Johnson, 2004). This is something that I concede to, but one of the primary issues that I have with the article stems from Friedman’s definition of those who are concerned with the actions of a business. According to Friedman, those who have primary interest in the corporation are solely its shareholders, none others (Marcoux, 2008). It makes sense

Friedman appears to believe that morality exists solely in the individual, and is not collective, saying “What does it mean that “business” has responsibilities? Only people responsibilities.” Friedman emphasizes that the individuals who form the group are fundamentally distinct from the group that they form. This is true, however it certainly does not disconnect the group from any sort of ethical consideration, as Friedman implies. Although in law corporations are distinct entities, it is incoherent to say that the moral character of individuals is somehow dissolved when they interact together to form groups. If persons A, B, and C all decide that they will increase their group’s profits if they rob a Walgreens, Friedman implies there is very important difference between making ethical judgements on the set of persons {A,B,C}, and making separate but essentially equivalent ethical judgments person A, then person B, and then person C. Friedman reasoning implies that the group {A, B, C} is somehow absolved from “social responsibilities” since its sole purpose was to rob a Walgreens for profit, and it carried out its sole purpose. Friedman would say that individuals {A}, then {B}, and then {C} are the ones who have ethical character, and it only of each individual that we can make ethical judgements. Although it is

Although it does illustrate the reality of the corporate machine very well, it attempts to absolve any sort of social or ethical character on businesses. This promotes unethical behavior in both Kant’s Deontology and Act Utilitarianism, as well as not satisfying principles of social justice and autonomy, and further justifying violations of non-maleficence. As well, Friedman’s attempt to separate the corporate entity from those who compose is unnecessary and troublesome for perfectly valid ethical analysis. Those who are a part of the company may disagree on whatever the ethical course for profits may be, but that does not mean that social responsibility of a business should be abandoned completely, as it is composed of individuals with ethical faculties. Corporations are thus moral agents, and do in-fact have social