What is the good that a ‘good’ business does?

What is the good that a ‘good’ business does?[1]

Although the title of the book is the good that business does, Robert G. Kennedy in the sixth chapter develops an idea of ‘a good business’.  He is also developing the idea that how business is aiming at the collective or the common good to the people at large. Although the book is aimed at seeking further intercourse between the catholic teaching and business, it also leaves an open space to raise some questions with regard to the theme developed.

It is true that when a business is called good and bad, the same distinction can be applied to other spheres of human endeavor too:  in the field of aesthetics one could speak of a good art and a bad one; in the field of ethics one could speak of a good act and a bad act; in the field of medicine one could speak of a good treatment and a bad treatment or a good medicine or a bad one, at a more larger and wider context one could speak of a good religion and a bad religion as well. I think that it is a good idea [!] to make distinction between good and bad.

I think that there is a difference between asking what is business and a good business. One of the fundamental features of a business is profit-making. Hence one can speak of good that comes out of the profit-making; even within profit making how certain good is contributed to the society.

I am sure that the substantial difference lies in the answer that one gets to these questions.

---

[1] This article is just a reflection on reading the following book. Cf. Robert G. Kennedy, The Good that Business Does (Acton Institute, 2006). This is not a response to the book. The questions raised here are some spontaneous questions that came to me. It is never intended to review the book, nor to refute what is suggested there.

MODERN CONDITION

There was an advertisement about an Automatic sex shop that ran like this 

– non importa se un angelo o diavolo: totalmente anonimo – 

[it does not matter whether you are an angel or devil:  totally anonymous]. 

This advertisement captures the present condition of the modern man.

Freedom today is understood to be one without constraints.[1] This is the world that has created an ambience in which one can do what one likes to do when one is being watched by the other. It is a kind of total freedom that one enjoys or wants to enjoy. This culture of freedom is expressed by many activities done by men facilitated by modern science. The automatic shops are one of the symptomatic expressions of this phenomenon. But this can also be seen to augment the condition of the modern man in which one can do what one likes freely, even without an iota of inhibition of what the other would think of it. Anybody in the liberal world can choose to buy what he or she likes to without external constraints, invisibly. I am only reminded of the mythical ring of Gyges.[2]

Further, the advertisement also captures the condition which insists on the detachability of a person’s being from his acts.[3] Modern world concentrates on what one has to do rather than what one is: it does not matter whether you are an angel or devil but you have the freedom to choose and act anonymously. This can also strengthen the view of those who are angels – to be angels and act as angels even when no one sees. In this way, this autonomy can also lead to what we call to be authentic self-realization.

Additionally, the advertisement also indicates that there are people who still feel ashamed of certain acts being done in public. This is to say that the human person has an inherent notion of the other’s credibility. Even nobody in the auto-bus knows me; I do not behave wrongly due to the fact that it can endanger my identity. My identity is also shaped by others that transcends beyond my freedom of doing. But it is not merely because the law forbids. For example no law forbids poking one’s nose with his finger, yet one does not do it in public because it does relate to his character and with his identity.

In spite of the fact that after the construal of the human person as the individual by the contractarians and liberals who appeal to the rationality of the individuals, the advertisements only appeal to the consumers emotionally. Emotions can be triggered more easily than rationality. While the business world today encourages and appeals to emotionality for its profit, it is ridiculous to say that religion appeals to emotions and therefore leads to fundamentalism. If the statement about religion is true, then it is doubly true that the capitalistic business world is more fundamentalist than religion.

---

[1] Freedom today is understood in the sense of ‘negative freedom’ that is defined by Isaiah Berlin who distinguished it from ‘positive freedom.’

[2] Cf. Plato, Republic, Book II, 359d – 360c. Glaucon makes a strong case that people act justly precisely because of the law or what others think of them. Therefore when one becomes invisible with the magical ring, the claim is that even a just would act unjustly. In this advertisement, even an angel would behave in devilish ways!

[3] This can take us to further reflections. Charles Taylor is right when he says that the moral domain has given more importance what to do rather than what to be. He says we are more worried about determining our actions in terms of rules rather than the good to be.

MODERN AND PRE-MODERN

The former prime minister of Britain, Mr. Tony Blair, who is a Roman Catholic, has reacted to the recent violent protests that caused the life of many people all over the world, saying, “I think what we shouldn't do is lose sight of what the real issue is, and the real issue is how do people actually think it is justified to react in a way that ends up innocent people being killed. […] So no, this is a profound problem; it’s a problem, as I say, which is about the struggle of modernization. The good news is, in the end, the modernizers will win incidentally, but it will take a long time to do.”[1]

One can well agree with Tony Blair that no one can justify the death of innocent persons. He is right in asserting that demanding the persons behind the film should be held responsible. But I am interested in his comment about modernity.

Modernization for most westerners means that it is about the freedom of the individual. A society is considered to be modern only when the individual freedom is attained. There should not be a major issue with this understanding. The further explanation at the comment of Blair is to indicate that one should be able to respect the views of others. This means that the modern people will be more tolerant and magnanimous in accepting the view of others even if it is a false view.

But how is that the individual who expects that everybody’s view should be respected does not respect the view of others even if it is a false one. I explain: sorry to use the name of Blair. If Blair thinks that the modern notion of freedom is to respect the view of others, then the Muslims should be able to respect the view of the director of the Movie. That is the sign of being modern. Because they are not modern, then they react violently.

My question is – if the views of others should be respected, why the director, who is a modern, does not respect the view of the millions of Muslims. 

Who is pre-modern – the director or the Muslims? Or Both?

*****

The irony is that the sister-in-law of Mr. Tony Blair 

converted to Islam 

three years after his conversion to Catholicism.

***** 

---

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/17/tony-blair-reaction-to-anti-islam-film-absurd_n_1889232.html

Extreme Individualism

It was shocking to watch a short movie titled ‘innocence of Muslims’.  The title had, as far as I am concerned, nothing to do with the so called ‘a short movie’. It was neither a documentary nor a movie in the technical sense of the term. It was not a documentary because it never stated any facts, it had no coherence, and it was not well presented. What one sees in the movie is the hatred towards a particular religious community while praising or attempting to praise Judaism.

One man in the United States had produced such a devastating movie irresponsibly deceiving even the actress in such a way that it is a movie on some clash between some clans in ancient Egypt. If this is what he had done with making of a movie, one can understand well how the movie itself has lots its credibility. Although a particular country cannot be held responsible for one man’s fault, it is high time that a country such as the United States revalues and redefines its understanding of ‘the free individual’. It is not only for the United States but also for other countries which are attempting to replicate the U.S. Model in their own country.

A lot has to do with the historical events and the development of understanding the Individual. One can see it in differences between the Europe and the U.S. Model. There are lots of differences between the two in many respects. The main one that is often noted of Europe is its secular character understood in terms of the rise of unbelief. The majority of them are not believers in the traditional religion, and more not active believers in any religion for that matter. On the contrary United States has more active believers statistically. The former, in spite of having less believers, respects the believers and their system of beliefs that give value to the individual, whereas the latter in spite of its religious character at large displays hatred towards other religious beliefs. It does not mean that I favor secular contents and want to promote secularization. 

What I see much more important is the difference between the conception of the individual understood in terms of rights. While the element of sociality is still operative in the Europe although very mildly, even the milder connection between the individual and the society is cut off in the U.S. Model. One could say that it has taken the path of extreme individuation where sociality is almost invisible. 

[I who am neither an European nor an American acknowledge that I may be wrong and I need to substantiate it with facts, for now it may be seen hypothetically.] Freedom has to be understood as an "Exercise concept" as Charles Taylor puts forward.