A KANTIAN APPROACH TO ETHICS OF BUSINESS CORPORATION

Transcription

1 A KANTIAN APPROACH TO ETHICS OF BUSINESS CORPORATION ABSTRACT By N. RAMTHING DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES NORTH-EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY SHILLONG

2 A KANTIAN APPROACH TO ETHICS OF BUSINESS CORPORATION ABSTRACT By N. RAMTHING Department of Philosophy School of Humanities Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy NORTH-EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY SHILLONG

3 1 A KANTIAN APPROACH TO ETHICS OF BUSINESS CORPORATION (Abstract) Name of the candidate : N. Ramthing Supervisor : Professor Jagat Pal This dissertation is a humble attempt to identify the significance and relevance of Kant s theory of morality 1 in the realm of business. It is often argued that the principles of Kantian morality are too broad and abstract to indicate the best course of action in a particular circumstance. In the investigation carried out, we find that among different dominant ethical theories, Kant s theory of morality provides the most rational approach to deal with the problems of ethics in business corporations at global level. In support of this claim, we have argued that no business can flourish in an ethical sense if it does not adhere to certain core values embodied in the Kantian morality, namely, respect for human dignity, respect for basic rights, respect for autonomy, respect for duty, truthfulness, trust, fair dealing, promise keeping, integrity, excellence, good will, honesty, and dutifulness. The key features of business corporation such as production, sales and marketing, competitiveness, promotion of consumerism, and profit maximization are found to be essentially compatible with the Kantian virtues of humanity, respect, autonomy and trust, etc. Our investigation also points out that Kant s theory of morality has rich implications for all rational beings as it is based on two basic assumptions about humans and morality: (i) it presupposes that all human beings are 1 The intention of choosing Kantian morality in particular, is not intended to discredit or undermine the work of any particular philosopher, nor intended to project Kantian morality as immune from criticism

4 2 rational and autonomous beings; (ii) all rational beings have access to autonomy of will. It appeals to all rational beings including business corporations. There are certain basic concepts such as respect for persons, the doctrine of end-in-themselves, and the categorical imperative which can be extended to the domain of business activity. Kantian morality allows that business corporations can be treated as moral communities and since corporations can be treated as moral communities, corporations can be held morally and socially responsible beyond merely making profit. Kantian morality is based on universal reason which provides a common conceptual framework to deal with different issues in the realm of business activities. In a nutshell, the present dissertation is a humble attempt to provide a systematic overview of Kantian principles and its relevance to business activities. follows: Accordingly, the dissertation is divided into seven chapters which are as Chapter One : Introduction Chapter Two : Kantian Morality Chapter Three : Selling and Marketing Chapter Four : Conflicts of Interest Chapter Five : Treating Business Corporation as a Moral Community Chapter Six : Corporations and Social Responsibility Chapter Seven : Conclusion In the Introduction, we have explained some prominent classical ethical theories, namely, the utilitarian theory, the contractarian theory, the virtue-based ethical

5 3 theory, and the Kant s theory of morality. The teleological view of morality connects the idea of right action with the idea of consequence and the idea of consequence with the idea of good. It considers good as a central concept and defines other correlated concepts such as right, obligation, ought and duty in terms of it. Utilitarianism is a teleological theory of ethics which connects the idea of right action with the idea of general happiness. While utilitarianism is widely referred to as one of the best ethical theories in the application of business ethics, there are some difficulties in subscribing to this approach as a sole method for moral decision-making. First, the fiercest criticism is the uncertainty of its domain. It emphasizes on the greatest happiness but the problem is - whose happiness is to count in designing policies to maximize the greatest happiness? 2 By demanding the highest maximization of values, consequentialism appears to impose unlimited moral sacrifices on the part of the minorities which perhaps may lead to a kind of violation of the principle of justice to the minorities and at the same time violate moral integrity of the minorities. The second problem is centered on the issues encountered when we try to measure and compare the utility. How can the utilities of different actions of different individuals be measured and compared? There seems to be no measuring rod as far as the utilities of different actions pertaining to different individuals are concerned. There is no accurate criterion for measuring the degree of satisfaction of one individual against the degree of satisfaction of another and hence, has no objective basis. On the other hand, virtue-ethics connects the idea of right action with the idea of the conduct of virtuous person, the one who exercises virtues in practice. Though virtue-ethics as an ethical theory has been widely accepted as one of the most important normative approaches, yet it is not entirely free from problems. 2 Posner, A. R., (1981) Some Problems of Utilitarianism in Laura P. Hartman & Abha Chatterjee (ed.,) (2005), (3 rd Edition), Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi, p. 37

6 4 Different thinkers have posed crucial questions, the answers to which are not readily available. One of the most severe criticisms posed against virtue ethics is that it fails to provide us with befitting guidance on how we are to act. When a person is in moral dilemma which often occurs in business, or in any other activities, we do not find solution to such problem in virtue ethics. For example, when a person who is unable to find a solution may ask a colleague what should I do? The question here is not of a kind of character one should possess but rather it is a question of what kind of actions are appropriate in a particular situation. Virtue-ethics fails to provide the answer to this question as the theory deliberately turns away from action and focuses on the kinds of moral character. Again, the contractarian view of morality defines right action in terms of the rules of contract. This view maintains that social living presupposes certain moral rules which every individual in a society accepts for his own personal advantages and thus, developed a simple criterion to decide what actions are morally good and morally bad. However, this theory fails to account the significance of addressing the issues arising from the nature of the agreement between the contracting parties. Is the agreement unanimous? If the agreement is not unanimous, then what hold for those who are not a party to the agreement? Moreover, the theory has been often criticized on the ground that it is based on historical fiction with little practicability. Ethical issues are settled on the basis of reason which is covertly universal. Kant conceives an ethical theory that centres on the idea of agency, humanity, respect for persons, autonomy of will, universal reason and consistency. His categorical imperative appeals to us to treat all human beings and their interests on an equal footing. Kant s theory of morality demands that agents, irrespective of differences, ought to detach themselves from their various personal and selfish motives in order to

7 5 discern an answer to the moral questions in favour of an appeal to general principles that enforce rational uniformity. Business is no exception from the purview of enforcing rational uniformity. In addition, a brief explanation on the relationships between business, society and ethics has also been discussed since they are intimately related. A society is a network of human relationships that link people together through various elements including ideas, values, cultural habits, geographical proximity, and various institutions. Business activities are socially related activities within the realm of society. A society cannot be thought of without following certain commonly accepted moral norms that governs the behavior of individual. It creates a certain world view and establishes the broad social norms or principles by defining what is generally considered as good, true, right, acceptable, etc. These social norms or principles are essential in guiding and coordinating different social relationships including business activities. In chapter two, we have discussed Kant s theory of morality in particular in order to discern and show how it can be relied upon as a foundation for ethical analysis in the realm of business. Kantian morality rests on the basic assumption that human beings have the unique capacity to reason and it emphasizes on the principle of acting impartially in accordance with the dictate of reason. His theory connects the concepts of moral rules, duties and actions with the concept of reason and emphasizes on how a human being endowed with inherent values ought to mobilize reason as moral compass 3 in all our decision-making. The doctrines of humanity, dutifulness, integrity, justice, right, good intention, truthfulness, promise keeping, trust, consistency, commitment and autonomy are strongly emphasized in Kantian morality. It is a 3 Sullivan, J. R., (1994) An Introduction to Kant s Ethics, Cambridge University Press, New York, p. 110

8 6 misconception to opine that ethical consideration is diametrically opposed to business consideration. In fact, both can mutually co-exist simultaneously without any logical difficulty. The reason being that ethical consideration does not exclude the consideration of self-interest and earning of profit from it. Rather it only emphasizes that business ought not to be done from the motive of selfish-interest. There is no valid reason that business cannot be ethical and profitable at the same time. There are many relevant examples of business institutions whose reasonable services towards the society at large are worthwhile and commendable. For example, Merck and Company, an American drug company whose challenging attempt in discovering the cure for river blindness ultimately saved millions of people who would otherwise have been condemned to lives of intense suffering and partial blindness. This was accomplished despite knowing the fact that the project would involve huge financial expenditure with little prospect of profit. A charge is often leveled against Kantian morality by saying that it is purely formal and has little practical utility in business. Often it is considered to be extremely dogmatic and inflexible. For example, Mill challenges Kant s emphasis on intention by asking: why do we praise good will, except that good will usually leads to good consequences? For Mill, the first thing we do is that we praise an act for its consequences and then we praise the intention of the person only in a secondary way to encourage him or her for further good consequences from such action. Duty for duty s sake is the maxim of Kant s morality and an action done out of the sense of duty alone is said to have a moral worth. Kant does not define duty in terms of its contents. Doing duty for its own sake is a formal requirement. In other words, it is the requirement of acting out of respect to the moral law or maxim. The idea of duty involves acting on

9 7 principle or maxim. Kant s idea of duty is not an empty idea. It does involve the idea of good of everyone s concern. In spite of all its limitations, Kant s theory of morality cannot be undermined as it gives an insight in identifying and defending the doctrines like, respect for persons, autonomy of will, etc., which can never be invalidated because these doctrines are the very essence of morality and most of all, these doctrines are what the world needs most. Besides, true to his doctrines, Kant s greatest concern was with the human community as a whole and with ways that human community could live in peace. In chapter three, a brief discussion on the concept of selling and marketing is carried out by taking into consideration the various important components of marketing. We have highlighted some important points to show that selling and marketing is an inalienable component of business activities. On an evaluation of some definitions, we find that selling and marketing are used as identical terms although selling and marketing are different in some aspects. Nonetheless, both of them are activities of business organization. The relation that holds between the two is of interdependency and inseparability. One prominent and effective method of selling and marketing is advertising. There are different modes of advertising such as television, radio, print, film, vehicular displays, etc. In today s economic world, advertisement plays an important role in bringing awareness of the latest manufactured goods and services. The availability of manufactured products is brought to the knowledge of customers through advertisement. It is employed by a business enterprise through which a business informs customers about the manufactured products with an intention to influence more customers. However, explanation of the various modes of advertising is not what is intended here. Rather, we focus on the ethical issues emanating from advertisement

10 8 such as, what effective benefits do advertisements cater to consumers? What is the impact of advertisement on the mind of the consumers? Do the consumers expect exceedingly massive satisfaction beyond what has been projected in the advertisements? In this connection, we have pointed out some unethical practices in advertising. One, that business, in a quest to entice customers inadvertently, employed false advertisement by way of concealing the facts about a product. Two, correct and accurate useful information is often found missing in advertising. Three, advertising often exaggerates about the product and ignore projecting the truth about the products. Such nature of advertisement in business violates the right to free choice. In contemporary commercial economy, marketing is not just understood in the narrow sense of making sale by telling and selling' but in a wider sense which encompasses customer s satisfaction as a core concern of marketing. Business activities normally manifest the nature of their intention through various manners. Business firm is an economic institution designed to provide goods and services to the customers. They are in the profession of provisioning the needs and requirements of the customers or the society as a whole. Business enterprises are not without any social and ethical responsibilities. To do business requires different essential components such as raw materials, an accessible place, proper infrastructures, human resources, transportation, marketing, etc. Business does not, therefore, function in a vacuum. There is a constant interaction between business community and the society in which business operates. Due care theory, contractual theory and strict liability theory tries to identify the significance of the welfare of the consumers. The due care theory attempts to give a strong theory by emphasizing more on the conduct of the manufacturers, but it fails to account for the importance of the condition of the products and also fails to address on

11 9 the issue of how far the obligation of manufacturers extends. The contractual theory maintains that buyers and sellers are equally efficient at evaluating the quality of a product and the buyers are able to protect their interests against the sellers. However, it is a wrong assumption that both buyers and sellers are of equal efficiency in evaluating the quality of a product. It is wrong to consider that the customers are as knowledgeable as the sellers because the sellers of a particular product are professionals who have expertise and knowledge far more better than the buyers whereas the buyers who purchase different kinds of commodities according to their needs cannot be expected to possess the knowledge of all the products one is buying. The buyers usually rely on the information provided by the sellers. Hence, treating both buyers and sellers on equal footing is not tenable and thus, fails to address the issues concerning the protection of consumers rights. On the other hand, the strict liability theory in trying to understand the issue overburdens the manufacturers by attributing all responsibilities including consequential action resulting from the carelessness of the consumers. Business transaction is a means of connecting and meeting the needs of customers through provisioning goods and services. Customers are kept abreast of the availability of manufactured goods and services through advertisements. However, consumers can be easily misled if the motive behind doing business is not based on right motives because consumers lack expertise in evaluating the pros and cons of a product available in the market. They are expected to be properly guided by the professionals. The sellers (professionals) have the moral responsibility to guide the dependents by giving accurate and useful information. Kant believed that every action has a maxim. Business activity has a maxim too. This principle requires us to ask what would happen if any action such as giving false information about a product, accepting

12 10 bribes, giving false promises were a universal law where everyone acted upon. Kantian principles such as respect for persons and autonomy of the will can be used as a criterion to test whether or not any proposed action or plan in business is morally permissible. In chapter four, a thorough discussion on conflict of interests is carried out. We deal with certain issues like, is the conflict of interest a conflict between the employers and the employees? Or is the conflict something to do with moral laws and legal laws? Or is it a conflict between the professional ethics or code of conducts and the moral laws? Or still could it be a conflict of interest between the business firms and the society at large? In a conflict of interest, either two duties conflict or a duty conflicts with selfinterest; in either case one ought to determine which interest serve the best interest of all by appealing to one s own reason. It is strongly believed that duty to society or humanity in general ethically supersedes duty to stockholders. However, it does not mean to depreciate the significance of duty one has towards the employing firm. There are duties or obligations to be observed and performed in accordance with the interests of the employing firms but such adherence to duties ought to be rooted in right motives. Conflicts of interests appear to have been associated with various elements such as moral laws, legal laws, professional codes of conduct, etc. There are possibilities of having conflicting opinions, ideas, beliefs, etc. To this end, an attempt should to be made to explain what conflict of interest is and how such conflict arises in business activities and how they adversely affect business behavior. One should try to strike balance between the welfare of the corporation and the welfare of the society at large on an objective basis.

13 11 Business as an organization is composed of different groups of individuals hailing from different culture, religion, language, nationality, race, etc., and hence, it is not devoid of issues. Different groups of individuals are often (if not always) confronted with conflicts of interest. Sometimes one s own personal interest conflicts with one s professional obligation. The decisions on which humans act upon do not go without any effect on others; be it positive or negative. Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion. Boatwright 4 states that conflict of interest is not merely a matter of personal ethics. He argues that to exploit an agency relation for personal gain is to violate the bond of trust that is an essential part of the relation. When an agent accepts a tangible benefit, the agent can be said to have a conflict of interest. It raises an ethical dilemma when the private interest is sufficient to influence or appear to influence the exercise of official duties where possibility of creating a conflict or having the potential to create a conflict which may bring deterioration to the best interest of the company. Promoting of one s own interest is not something which is unethical in itself. It becomes unethical when it is promoted at the cost of others interest or it is done with selfish motive. Kant believed that morality in all spheres of human life should be grounded in reason. His categorical imperative states that people should act only according to maxims or universal norms and should never treat another human as a means to an end. It would be unethical for an employee to commit himself in gaining selfish personal profit against the best interest of the employing firm. Pursuing private interest at the cost of profit for themselves undermines public interest and trust. They make the public lose faith in the integrity of business transaction. In conflicts of interest, private interest 4 Boatright, R. J., (2003) Ethics and the Conduct of Business, Pearson Education Inc., Delhi, p

14 12 includes any advantage to himself or herself, to his or her family, close relatives, business firm with whom he or she has or has had business or personal relations. It also includes liabilities whether pecuniary or non-pecuniary. Making sure that moral agents are well attuned to the circumstances in which they render practical judgments is undoubtedly important. This is no less true for business ethics as any other area of applied ethics. When people fail to be committed, they risk being punished by the business community or by government enforcement of laws as there are rules and regulations maintained and implemented in all professional code of conduct. As far as Kant is concerned, there is a logical contradiction in the conflict of interest because one cannot represent both at the same time. One has to either vote for one or the other. An employee who is representing his/her employing firm cannot just promote his selfish personal interest because he/she stands as a representative of the employing firm and hence, endorsing his/her selfish personal gain stands against with the best interest of the employing firm and thus unethical. Kant held that one s maxim is ethical only if it can be universalized without logical contradiction. In trying to determine how conflict of interest is unethical, it is important to refer back to Kant s Formula of Universal Law. Kant 5 says that the Formula of Universal Law is a test of the sufficiency of the reasons for action and choice to motivate a rational being which are embodied in our maxims. Kantian morality aims to prove that perfect rationality includes conformity to the categorical imperative. For a maxim to be ethical, it must be founded on reason, which is necessary and thus, capable of being held universally. Rational nature assigns values, including ethical values, which cannot take place outside 5 Kant, I., (1964) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. H.J. Paton, Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, p. 88

15 13 the domain of reason. Hence, maxims that are ethical must be capable of being universalized. In chapter five, we have made an attempt to explain business corporations from the perspective of moral community with an objective to discern whether business corporations as a constituent part of social activities should be treated as a moral community. In addition to this, the debate over whether corporations have a conscience like rational beings or not have also been discussed and examined. Throughout the discussion Kantian perspective of morality has been reflected as it has rich implication for business ethics. Kantian morality takes into account only rational beings. In this sense, it can be said to be anthropocentric in its approach. However, it does not totally exclude non-rational beings as Utilitarianism does. Some thinkers 6 say that Kantian ethical approach is extremely exclusive as it does not consider beings other than rational beings. But, it is non-exclusive as it does not exclude any rational beings from the scope of morality. It does not exclude any being that we can hold accountable and that can hold us accountable and hence, focuses on both the absolute moral duties that we have to other agents, and the absolute respect that we ought to have for them. Though business corporations themselves do not possess a conscience of their own, yet they do hold responsibilities other than making profit. They are equally accountable to the society as members of the society. The members working in corporation are rational beings living in the kingdom of ends endowed with rational thinking capable of discerning what is good and what is evil. They are moral agents living in a moral community. A moral agent is one who can be held responsible for its 6 Kuhlik, L., (2011) Ethics and Agency: Conceptualizing Moral Community, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut, p. 4

16 14 behavior or decision. It is moral agents who can be said to have responsibilities, because it is they who have the capacity to think, to deliberate and to choose. Kant says, "Everything in nature works in accordance with laws. Only a rational being has the power to act in accordance with his idea of laws, that is, in accordance with principles-- and only so far has he a will. Since reason is required in order to derive actions from laws, the will is nothing but practical reason." 7 These principles or rules create what we call obligations. Kantian philosophy focuses on both the absolute moral duties that we have to other agents, and the absolute respect that we ought to have for them. His idea of the highest good the ultimate end of moral action talks about ethical community akin to the realm of the kingdom of ends. It also talks about duty of rational agents to participate in social institutions and relationships as he believes these institutions play a crucial role in bestowing moral characters on a community. Once moral agents have acquired the broader objective perspective and see their obedience to the moral law as part of an effort to establish a universal moral community, they also recognize that promoting this end is itself a moral duty. This is a duty which they recognize when they reflect on the moral principle. This is why Kant argues that joining the ethical community is a distinct duty over and above acting in the moral law. 8 It is to be noted here that when Kant talks about moral laws it presupposes all rational beings without any distinction in rank or status of any kind. Moral laws are 7 Kant, I., (1964) Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, translated and analyzed by H.J. Paton, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, p Kant, I., (1934) Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, trans., Theodore M. Greene and Hoyt H. Hudson, Open Court, New York, p. 6:94

17 15 self-legislated laws. Business corporation is no exception because a corporation is nothing apart from rational individuals. Kantian morality is not only concerned with individual s rights and the equal worth of human beings but has deep concern on the idea of a moral community in which the ends of all rational beings must form a unity to be pursued individually and collectively. In commercial activities too, corporations as one of the constituents of social organization can also show equal respect to persons as well as to other corporations. According to him, there are certain duties that bind all human beings irrespective of any caste, class, creed, gender and religion etc., simply because of being a human. Treating people as end in themselves and never merely as means is no exception to all rational being, be it in business or any other form of agencies. Business ethics, after all is nothing but a contextualization of general ethics in the realm of business. As members of a moral community, each individual is responsible for other members either merely responsible for their welfare, or responsible (to some extent) for their development, or responsible for creating the conditions necessary to fostering their membership (and the membership of others) as much as possible. As a moral being that lives in a moral community, we must respect others not as individuals with diverse interests, objectives and goals, but as fellow rational beings capable of obeying universal law. The sixth chapter focuses on the following questions: can business corporations limit themselves only in making profit for the owner? What responsibility do business corporations have other than mere making profit? Friedman in his short article (1970) argued that the sole concern of managers in a corporation is to fulfill the interest of the

18 16 owners of the business. 9 He argues that a corporation is an artificial person and in this sense may have artificial responsibility, but business as a whole cannot be said to have responsibilities even in a vague sense. 10 He vehemently proposes that the sole responsibility of business is to maximize stockholders wealth and not of promoting social end. 11 In his famous book, Capitalism and Freedom, 12 he categorically condemns and calls the doctrine of social responsibility a fundamentally subversive doctrine in a free society, and have said that in such a society,...there is one and only one social responsibility of business--- to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays with the rule of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud. 13 He strongly advocates that corporations are not in business to help society. 14 For him, employees are hired to execute the business of the owners and hence, the employees have direct responsibility to his employers and that responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make profit and thus, the employees in the business becomes just an instrument for amassing as much profit as possible for the owners which the Kantian doctrine of respect for persons would not subscribe. 15 The arguments leave no room to doubt Friedman s categorical denial of corporate social responsibility. 9 Friedman, M., (2002) Legitimate and Responsibility: The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits, in Applied Ethics: A Critical Concept In Philosophy, Volume V, edited by Chadwick, Ruth and Schroeder, Dorris, Routledge II, New Fetter lane, London, p Ibid., p Friedman, M., (1991) Can Business Afford To Be Ethical, in Ethics For Modern Life, ed., Abelson, Raziel and Friquegnon, Marie-Louise, St. Martin s Press, Inc., New York, p Friedman, M., (1962) Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 13 Friedman, M., (2002) Legitimate and Responsibility: The Social Responsibility Of Business is to Increase Its Profits, in Applied Ethics: A Critical Concept In Philosophy, Volume V edited by Chadwick, Ruth and Schroeder, Dorris, Routledge II, New Fetter lane, London, p Weiss, W. J., (1994) Business Ethics: A Managerial, Stakeholder Approach, by Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., Belmont, California, p Kant, I., (1948) Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, translated and analyzed by H. J. Patton. First Harper Torch book Edition Publishers Incorporated, Inc., New York, p. 32

19 17 Business activities do not occur in isolation. Therefore, the view that business corporations do not have any responsibility other than making profit for the shareholder as espoused by Friedman cannot be accepted. Business activities are parts of societal activities and hence, socially related activities. The prosperity of any business depends on the support and cooperation of the society in which business operates. Though business corporations themselves do not possess a conscience of their own, they do hold responsibilities other than making profit. They are equally accountable to the society as members of the society. Moreover, since the members working in a corporation are rational beings endowed with rational thinking, they too are capable of discerning what is good from bad. Who are the moral agents? Moral agents are those who can be held responsible for their behavior or decision because it is they who have the agential capacity. Business corporations can be treated as a moral community simply because they are members of rational beings that share certain common characteristics and they are bound to observe certain principles or rules of conduct in relation to one another by virtue of their mutual likeness. Hence, in order to make a consistent and coherent approach to corporate theory of social responsibility, Kant s doctrines such as, good will, respect for persons, truthfulness, dutifulness, trust, justice etc., have been introduced that applies to all rational human beings as they are the very basic fundamental moral principles. Kantian morality would require members of business corporations to create an organization where members develop their rational and moral capabilities, including the capacity to take responsibility which perhaps would subsequently lead the corporate laws to stand as collective voice of business as a whole. The structure of corporate system incorporated with such moral principles, would treat humanity as a person or

20 18 corporation as a moral community because in such system, the moral principles that govern the activities of business should be principles that can be endorsed by every member of the corporation. Kantian morality neither prohibits earning profit in business nor does it recommend profit at the cost of other person s right. It only emphasize on the moral aspect of business. From the various discussions carried out throughout the dissertation, it is found that Kantian morality proves to be the most suitable theory from among various existing ethical theories in spite of its limitations. In our attempt, we have explained some of the limitations of Kantian morality in its application to business activities. Reason, for Kant, is the same for all persons and believes that human beings have an intrinsic value, or dignity, which makes them valuable above all else. If that is so, human beings must be treated with respect no matter what position an individual holds or commands. The doctrine of respects for person does apply to all rational beings because everyone wants to be respected. It is quite possible to say that Kantian morality may not be accepted by many and yet even those who do not accept his doctrine would realize that ethical consideration applies to all persons concerned: ethical considerations are not a matter of private affairs. The idea of ethics involves the idea of concern for others. In short, we can say that even though there are certain problems with Kantian morality yet we cannot deny its relevance in the realm of business activities. There is nothing in the idea of maximization of profit which prevents us from pursuing business ethically. Earning of profit no doubt has value but it requires ethical significance only when it is earned in an ethical manner. If profit is earned by violating the ethical aspects of business it loses its ethical significance. Profit can be earned ethically and unethically but earning profit unethically is bereft of ethical worth from the Kantian perspective.