David P. Schmidt, Ph.D. Fairfield University

Transcription

1 STRATEGIES FOR APPLYING CATHOLIC SOCIAL THOUGHT TO BUSINESS ETHICS EDUCATION: Purpose of the Paper AN ETHICAL REASONING APPROACH David P. Schmidt, Ph.D. Fairfield University This paper will examine the process of ethical reasoning, to explore ways in which the values from Catholic social thought can contribute to a Catholic University s education in business ethics. It will use an influential model of reasoning developed by philosopher Stephen Toulmin the candid layout of an argument to show that logically there are different functions that Catholic social values can play in normative arguments on business ethics issues. Significantly, these different logical functions of Catholic values in ethical reasoning suggest distinctly different ways to conceive the role of Catholic social thought in business education. This paper s primary objective is to use this account of Catholic values in ethical reasoning to make a normative proposal for how to conceptualize the role of values from Catholic social thought in business education. However, inasmuch as Toulmin s candid layout of argument has proven to be a useful pedagogical tool, this paper will also note some practical implications for incorporating Catholic values in teaching about business ethics and other business topics. Toulmin s Candid Layout of an Argument In 1958, Stephen Toulmin published an influential text, The Uses of Argument, which developed a candid or informal layout of argument. The primary purpose of this text was to use this informal layout or anatomy of an argument to criticize the abstract character of traditional logic. Since then, Toulmin s model has been widely adopted by texts in rhetoric and communications because of the way it helpfully illumines the workings of actual arguments in a wide variety of fields. In over twenty years experience of using this candid layout in university business ethics courses and in corporate ethics training programs, I have found that it excels as an analytical tool for understanding ethics arguments, as well as a constructive tool for building new arguments on ethics issues. This paper will use this candid layout of argument to explore different ways in which values function to support normative claims The following is a simplified outline of Toulmin s model of reasoning: \ Warrant \ Rebuttal Each part plays a unique function in the overall anatomy or layout of the argument.

2 The Claim answers the question that starts many ethics conversations: What do you think about this? The Claim is an assertion or statement that needs additional support because it is not selfevident or true by definition. Not all statements are Claims: Expressions of pure emotions may not need further support or argument ( I feel upset ), nor do tautologies ( All unmarried men are bachelors. ) Most of the Claims made in ethics arguments, however, will require some kind for further support or explanation, which can be understood, logically, as providing a justificatory argument. An example of an ethics claim (because it makes a normative judgment rather than a descriptive or predictive statement) would be: Claim: Bernie Madoff was wrong to do what he did. Once the Claim is made, it is reasonable to ask for reasons why we should accept it. The most obvious and immediate reason that usually appears first in an argument is the Grounds, which are empirical facts. These are typically the most visible or obvious kinds of evidence available for one s argument. The best Grounds are not simply empirical, they are also public, in the sense that they are (or can be) widely available to anyone who wishes to examine the factual evidence. To continue with our example, if we ask of the person making the Claim, Why do you think that? one answer could be: Grounds: Madoff ran a huge ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes are illegal. It is a fact that Madoff ran a ponzi scheme; this can be verified by examining his behavior. It is also a fact that Ponzi schemes are illegal; this can be verified by consulting the relevant securities laws or regulations. Facts alone do not make an argument. In addition to providing Grounds to support the Claim, the arguer must demonstrate the relevance of the Grounds for the Claim. The Grounds may elicit questions like, So what? Why do those particular Grounds matter? The answer is provided by the Warrant, which is a general principle or rule that establishes the relevance of the Grounds. The Warrant is not simply more empirical facts; it provides a principle or a value that warrants or licenses the step from the statement of the Grounds to the conclusion of the Claim, showing that there is a reasonable or legitimate connection between them. In this Madoff example, a Warrant could be a principle that says: Warrant: In general, we should obey the law. It is wrong not to obey the law. Because, like the Claim, the Warrant is not self-authenticating or true by definition, it is reasonable to ask, Is that Warrant reliable or trustworthy? Answers to this question will also point to empirical evidence or factual experience, although normally it will not point to evidence about the particular case at hand (i.e., about Madoff). Rather, it will point to more general experience, common practice, the weight of authorities on the matter, to the historical record anything that leads us to accept the Warrant as a reliable guide for judgment. In this case, to answer why it is a good idea to obey laws, the could look to various considerations:

3 : 1) A calculation of how costs (fines, imprisonment) tend to outweigh benefits of breaking the law in specific cases; 2) The general experience of what happens negatively, over time, to businesses and/or the social order when laws are routinely broken; 3) Social institutions (the government, the church, the family) that put their weight behind the value of obeying laws and rules. Finally, it is important in any argument to ask for the exceptions when the argument does not hold. We could ask, Everything you say is true, unless... Probably all arguments in ethics admit of at least some exceptions, even in this case of Bernie Madoff: Rebuttal: Unless he was not mentally competent. We don t call people wrong in an ethical sense if they are not mentally in control of their actions. To summarize, education in business ethics will include making and analyzing arguments about business practices and policies. An argument in ethics (as in any field) will involve assembling various kinds of evidence or reasons to support a conclusion or Claim. Different reasons perform logically distinct functions. This is significant for ethics in business education generally, and for business education in Catholic universities specifically, because these different logical functions of values in ethical reasoning suggest distinctly different ways to conceive the role of Catholic social thought in business education. Different Functions/Roles for Values in an Argument Because the normative content of an argument can be emphasized at different points in a justificatory argument, the choice of where logically to position this content in the argument reflects one s deeper sense of strategy or purpose for what constitutes effective argumentation in particular contexts. This point can be illustrated by considering different ways to employ normative content from Catholic social teaching in our argument about Bernie Madoff. For the purpose of this simplified, illustrative argument, I will identify respect for human dignity as a basic theme within Catholic social teaching, a theme that traces back to biblical materials, that has been reaffirmed in different ways by various contributors to doctrine over the centuries, and more recently affirmed by Popo John Paul II who identified human dignity as one of the three cornerstones for Catholic social teaching (along with solidarity and subsidiarity). Grounded in the conviction that humans are created in the image and likeness of God, respect for human dignity provides direction for how we should treat others in all avenues of life, including in business and commercial acitivity. One argument strategy to foreground Catholic Social teaching in business ethics would be to place the content of this teaching in the Grounds for the Claim. Accordingly, when asked to explain why do you think that? about Bernie Madoff, one approach would give a factual description about what this tradition has to say about the importance and value of human dignity, which so clearly has been violated by the enormous fraud perpetrated by the unprecedented range of Madoff s vast ponzi scheme. In this approach, the initial rhetorical move would be to cite the facts of what the Catholic social tradition has to say about the importance of human dignity normally by citing particular texts and figures in the tradition.

4 Grounds: As a matter of fact, here are the things that the Catholic social tradition says about the value of human dignity, which clearly was violated by Madoff s enormously destructive ponzi scheme. In response to the question, So what? Why are those grounds relevant? the Warrant for this argument would give a principle for the relevance of Catholic social teaching--especially about something fundamental like human dignity--for Claims about Madoff s business behavior. Different kinds of warrants might well be produced for this purpose. The most simple could be a principle about what makes any doctrine authoritative for believing Catholics: Warrant: Any body of doctrine that has been developed by and is put forward by the Catholic Church can be reliably followed by persons who stand in that tradition; and/or by those who have a respect for that tradition. When asked if this is reliable, the response could assemble reasons for why the doctrines of the Catholic Church are held to be authoritative for believers; and more generally about why traditions are normative for persons who either stand in those traditions and/or who have respect for those traditions. In effect, the would provide what might be considered a hermeneutics of tradition. So, an argument that foregrounds Catholic social teaching in the Grounds of an argument would look like this (omitting the Rebuttal for present purposes): Catholic social teaching Bernie Madoff was wrong On Human Dignity Warrant Principle for the Authority of Tradition A Hermeneutics of Tradition Other argument strategies are possible. By contrast, the Claim against Madoff could look first to empirical descriptions of the devastating effects of his ponzi scheme on the lives of large numbers of people. (YouTube provides many wrenching first-person testimonies of how lives have been diminished, even destroyed, by the financial ruin caused by Madoff s scheme.) The argument could then go as follows: Grounds: Many lives have been destroyed by Madoff s scheme. The people left penniless have had their dignity severely challenged by this outcome. When asked for the relevance of these grounds for our Claim, the Warrant could be a general principle along these lines: Warrant: We should judge against anyone who violates the dignity of others. And then, of course, this Warrant could be backed by the Catholic social tradition s stance on the importance of safeguarding human dignity. But, and this is important, this general warrant could also be backed in ways other than by appeal to the Catholic social tradition: by other religious

5 traditions; by philosophical or humanitarian traditions; and so on. In this way, we have an argument strategy that lays out quite differently than the previous example: Negative empirical Bernie Madoff was wrong effects of Madoff Warrant on dignity of Respect for Human many people Dignity - Catholic Social Teaching - Other Religious Traditions - Philosophical and Humanitarian Traditions Implications for Values from Catholic Social Thought in Business Education Using this candid model of reasoning, we see that there are logically different roles Catholic values can play in ethical arguments on business issues. These different roles can signify different conceptions of the role of Catholic values in business education. For example: a. In Grounds: Descriptive statements can be given about particular normative requirements or positions from Catholic Social Teaching. Placing content of Catholic Social Teaching in the Grounds has the effect of emphasizing Catholic values in an explicit, distinctive and concrete way. b. In the for the Warrant: Content from Catholic social thought can be used to support or validate general ethics principles in the Warrant. For example, the Warrant Respect Human Dignity could be backed with reference to specific documents and thinkers in Catholic social thought. c. But, importantly, this Warrant can also be Backed by materials from other religious, philosophical and social traditions. This logical point opens the possibility of an ecumenical dialogue that acknowledges the specificity of Catholic values while noting the possibility for mutual learning with other traditions. The conclusion of this paper will discuss the significance of these different arguments strategies for how we understand the relevance and function of Catholic values in business education.