A taste: “Contrary to what Michael Moore thinks, capitalism promotes moral and ethical behavior. In Woods’ case, it punishes poor behavior. Sponsors such as Nielsen, AT&T, Gillete and Gatorade have all either suspended or removed their endorsement deals with Tiger due to his moral mistakes.”
In a private audience held this past weekend with Rome’s water and electrical company, ACEA, Benedict XVI expressed to local business leaders his priorities for improving true corporate social responsibility within business enterprises.
Prior to the pope’s speech, there was the usual protocol, fanfare, and flattery.
First was the thematic gift-giving. Benedict received a copy of the book “Entrepreneurs for the Common Good ” (published by the Christian Union of Entrepreneurs and Managers as part its series of short monographs “Christian Entrepreneurs for the Future of Europe“). ACEA’s board of directors then presented Benedict with special editions of the company’s “Values Card” and “Code of Ethics,” documenting the corporation’s written promises to promote “responsibility, transparency, fairness, spirit of service, and cooperation.” Then came the brief verbal exchanges between the pope and the corporate representatives, immediately followed by the precious and much-awaited handshakes and individual photo opportunities with the Holy Father, destined to become silver-framed trophies hung on ACEA’s boardroom wall and perched on the CEO’s desktop.
Finally, Benedict took a few spontaneous moments to congratulate ACEA on its centennial anniversary and offered a few kind words about its illumination of Roman and Vatican monuments and particularly about its corporate social responsibility program to improve water and electrical supply in developing countries.
All seemed like a perfect meeting between executive business and religious leadership. Surely ACEA’s board of directors and CEO were pinching themselves: They could not have expected anything better for their company’s public relations program. They finally got the “blessing” the wanted on their good enterprise.
But it was at this time that Benedict took advantage to sermonize and offer cautious words of advice to these proud corporate leaders, that is, on how businesses and their leaders should be truly socially responsible.
While presuming that Christian spirit may inspire any CSR program (instead of perhaps a company’s hidden agenda of image enhancement), Benedict underscored that any good social intentions and actions must be effectively rooted in allowing man to freely “produce, innovate, think, and build a future” for himself and his community. This is how we begin to be responsible for fostering a better, more dignified society.
These few words must be part and parcel of any corporate program and culture. They are to be truly lived — from the largest corner offices to the smallest cubicles, unlike the corporate personalities portrayed in the cartoon of this blog. These simple, core human values must gain priority over resolving external social concerns on much wider scales.
In addition, true social responsibility must be other-directed and gains its inspiration by nurturing “interpersonal relationships” within our own very work environment and immediate surroundings. In Benedict’s words, it must be rooted in “fair consideration of the expectations of our own workers, clients, suppliers and the entire (local) community”. Otherwise, behind the façade of a good CSR program may lay a selfish, individual-centered, profit-only seeking corporate mentality.
Oftentimes, while not necessarily so at ACEA, secularized corporate leadership is one that “exacerbates the concept of the individual” in which, consequentially, both workers and management end up “closed to themselves, retreating into their own particular problems.”
This is the very moral breakdown that brought about the great economic crisis. Certainly any good CSR program will fade away once the utilitarian need for a good public image recedes and if there is no true Christian inspiration behind the corporate mission in the first place.
As Benedict rightly says, even if ACEA executives have done much to act as good stewards while managing precious natural resources in a chaotic and ever-expanding Roman metropolis and have even done a fine job of providing valuable services for the environment and communities in poor countries abroad, they have really done nothing if they have not yet first promoted a dignified “human ecology” among their own thousands of employees, suppliers, clients and members of their local community.
The new issue of Religion & Liberty features an interview titled “Debating the Depression” with noted columnist and author Amity Shlaes. Shlaes does a superb job at reminding us about some of the consequences associated with massive government spending and regulation. First and foremost among these consequences is the burden of debt and taxes we are heaping upon future generations. This kind of expansion, without the means to pay for it, will sadly have a negative impact upon the quality of life of future Americans.
Another tremendous contribution comes from Grand Rapids orthopedic surgeon Dr. Donald P. Condit. Religion & Liberty has published an excerpt from his Acton monograph, A Christian Prescription for Health Care Reform. As we have seen, health care is an issue that inspires passion, activism, and tremendous debate, and it’s impossible to have a holistic understanding of this topic outside of a moral framework. The Acton Institute has been at the forefront when it comes to examining the moral implications related to our health care issues.
If you missed the book reviews that have already been previewed on the PowerBlog, we have a review of two books on Byzantium from Religion & Liberty’s Executive Editor John Couretas. I reviewed Dr. Jay Richard’s book Money, Greed, and God. I stated in the review some thoughts, which are essential for defending and expanding the influence of free markets:
Richards understands that for capitalism or free markets to succeed and flourish they must have a moral framework and hold a moral value for the believer. Even if one is, however, not a person of faith, it’s hard to argue against a need for a moral component for business and industry given the current economic crisis.
There is more content in the issue, including commentary on Pope Benedict’s encyclical Caritas in Veritate. Lester DeKoster was profiled for the “In the Liberal Tradition” this issue. DeKoster was first and foremost a Christian man of faith, who while serving our Lord, defended the Church against Marxist liberation theologies. Which was just one of his many accomplishments.
Memo to documentary filmmaker Michael Moore: Free markets didn’t cause the financial crisis. The biggest culprits were government planners meddling with the market. That’s the message of Acton’s newest video short.
So why on earth is Michael Moore (Capitalism: A Love Story, Sicko) so eager to route even more power and money through Washington? Centralized planning is economic poison. Doubling down isn’t the cure.
(Also, Acton’s resource page on the economic crisis is here.)
Samuel Gregg, director of research at the Acton Institute, reflects on business ethics in his recent commentary. Gregg explores the presence of business ethics courses in business schools; however, with the large presence of business ethics courses we still have a lack of ethics present in business. The lack of ethics in business became a major factor in our current financial crisis. Gregg further explains that business is not just about management or the business ethics that are taught, but businessmen and women need to also learn stewardship:
Business, however, is about more than management. It also involves stewardship (inasmuch as managers have moral and fiduciary responsibilities to their clients and investors) and entrepreneurship – the actual creation of wealth. Many business leaders would be shocked to discover that studying entrepreneurship remains optional in many business schools today.
This underlines another problem for some business schools. It’s not clear that all business professors are convinced of the morality of economies based on free enterprise, limited government, and rule of law. This ambivalence cannot help but be communicated to their students, which they take with them into the marketplace. It is very difficult for business schools to teach the moral habits associated with successful business when many business professors regard private enterprise and markets as, at best, useful but morally-insignificant phenomena.
Gregg also makes references it Pope Benedict XVI’s new social encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, to demonstrate the need for morality in business:
Hence, though Benedict speaks approvingly of the rise in ethics-consciousness in the worlds of finance and business, he cautions that simply attaching the label “ethical” to a given enterprise tells us nothing about the actual morality of its practices. What ultimately matters, the Pope affirms, is the precise vision of morality – and therefore the understanding of the human person – informing not simply a particular business, but the entire economy (CV 45).
One of the main arguments for nationalized health care is a moral argument: Health care is a right and a moral and just society should ensure that its people are taken care of–and the state has the responsibility to do this. Bracketing for the time being whether health care is actually a right or not–it is clearly a good, but all goods are not necessarily rights–whether the state should be the provider of it is another question.
But there is another question as well: It is often assumed that those arguing for national health care and socialized medicine have the moral high ground and those of us who oppose it are always arguing on economic terms. I would argue that this is a ground too easily given and not deserved. While the economics are pretty clear (see Hunter Baker’s post), the moral arguments against nationalized health care are sometimes overlooked. Here are a couple of reasons why nationalized health care is in fact not a morally pure as proponents would like us to believe.
1. Handing something off to the state so citizens don’t have to take responsibility for themselves and others doesn’t doesn’t really contribute to the moral fabric of a society.
We love to talk about solidarity and the common good but too often solidarity gets turned into “let the state take care of it.” A broader and I would argue morally rich concept of the solidarity and the common good would look to human flourishing and a rich civil society and turn to the state only as the last resort.
It hurts the common good to have the state take over responsibilities that we should bear ourselves or for our fellow citizens. A large nanny state contributes to the “individualism” that Tocqueville warned about: a turning into self that isolates us from everyone but our nearest circle. If the state does everything for us then we don’t need to care about our brothers and sisters and fellow citizens. This means the breakdown of guess what–solidarity. Solidarity is the driving principle behind subsidiarity, voluntary organizations, and charity. Love of neighbor should prompt us to help each other not pass it it off to the state.
From a moral point of view, having the state take over health care breaks down solidarity and harms the common good.
2. At least equally important–how moral is a health care system based on utilitarian cost benefit calculus and consequentialism? Not very, but that’s how nationalized healthcare operates.
Think about what this means for a minute. Health care decisions are made based on cost benefit and utility which itself puts us on dangerous moral ground. This danger becomes clear when when we realize the consequences. A utilitarian, data driven or what ever you want to call it system ends up by putting pressure on the weak and especially targets the disabled and the elderly. Why? Because if decisions are make based on utility then why would we want to spend health dollars on the disabled and the elderly when their “usefulness” is minimal. Keeping the elderly and the disabled alive costs money. For Christians or other who accept the inherent dignity of life the value of this is obvious, but for secular utilitarians and a utilitarian health care system this is a waste of money–which means that after a time within a national health care system, pressure will mount to euthanize the elderly and infirm. If this sound ridiculous and conspiratorial to you I suggest that you look at Europe and what is beginning to happen there. After years of population decline Europe is a demographic disaster and guess what? Euthanasia has been legalized in three countries (Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg), is widely practiced in a fourth (Switzerland) and many pro-euthanasia advocates are starting to introduce cost-effectiveness arguments into their position.
The facts are that a state run health system, while sounding very moral, actually undermines the common good and ends up putting pressure on the unborn, the elderly, and the disabled.
Proponents of nationalized health care attempt to make emotional arguments because economic and medical data supporting their position doesn’t exist. Let us not grant them the moral high ground on this debate. Nationalized health care is scientifically, spiritually, and morally bankrupt—oh yes as Europe is demonstrating, financially bankrupt as well.
In his commentary, “The Pope, the Rabbi, and the Moral Economy,” Samuel Gregg compares recent statements by Britain’s Chief Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, and Pope Benedict XVI, on the market economy and other social questions. “Benedict and Sacks rigorously deny that markets are intrinsically flawed,” Gregg writes. “Each also maintains that there are fundamental limits to state power. They do, however, insist that morality’s ultimate sources come from neither state nor market.”
Gregg demonstrates the parallels between Pope Benedict XVI’s Caritas in Veritate and an op-ed printed in the London Times by Rabbi Sacks:
The pope and the rabbi had a similar message, which amounts to the following. Some of our contemporary economic problems reflect a deeper moral crisis within Western civilization. Until we acknowledge this, shifts in economic policy and business practice will only provide limited solutions.
Drawing upon the parallels between Pope Benedict the XVI and Rabbi Sachs, Gregg concludes that both question “those who limit morality to politically-causes and the associated refusal of many working economies…”