One group argued that a lot of warfare, conflict and injustice is caused by emotional behaviour. Inflamed by passions, men do heroic acts against self-interest, causing damage to self and to society. Strengthening the practical and rational forces of selfishness and greed would counterbalance these passions and lead to a more peaceful society. In concrete terms, founders of the European Economic Community felt that strengthening commercial ties between European countries would be a way to prevent the historical pattern of incessant warfare that had prevailed in the past centuries. Another group thought that greed was a powerful force. If strong social inhibitions on pursuit of money were removed, societies would become wealthy. Sufficient wealth would transform the nature of men and societies, creating heaven on earth.
Those who launched this social experiment were perfectly clear that greed was inherently bad, but hoped to harness its power on the limited domain of commerce. The other social institutions of the judiciary, executive, education and family were not supposed to be affected. Their followers did not respect these fine points. The maxim that ‘greed is good’ became the credo of Wall Street. All institutions were infiltrated by greed, as pursuit of wealth became socially acceptable.
The Hippocratic Oath holds doctors to high ideals of service. It is only in the 20th century that it gradually became socially acceptable to enter the profession with the intention of making money from the misery of the sick. Most of my first year fellow students had entered the PhD programme in economics with the intention of helping to solve the pressing economic problems of human beings. Four years of professional training at Stanford washed these sentiments out of us, replacing it with the neutral detachment of scientists solely concerned with discovery of economic laws.
All over the world, leading business schools taught future managers to focus on the bottom line. Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman famously proclaimed that profits is the only business of business. There was a minor scandal at Harvard when game theorists started teaching the theory of ‘self-enforcing contracts’. This theory assumes that people or firms will disregard ethics and violate contracts whenever it is profitable to do so.
Under the influence of such teachings, managers at multinational corporations betrayed communities and employees, initiated and profited from wars, and destroyed forests, rivers, lakes and the biosphere together with many species of animals and plants. Awareness of highly unethical practices of businesses has led to massive increase in distrust of business. The currently popular movement for social responsibility in business is an attempt to restore the damaged image. Unfortunately, there is much more emphasis on the image and little on real social responsibility.
Journalism played an increasingly important role in projecting a noble image to get popular support for pursuit of corporate profits. The Murdoch scandal is a good illustration. Media empire mogul Rupert Murdoch paid a million dollars to cover up criminal activities by journalists in search of hot stories. This led to the collapse of the popular and successful tabloid News of the World and the break-up of a billion dollar newspaper merger that was in the works. Even more disturbing are strong linkages between the military industrial complex and the journalists. David Barstow of The New York Times wrote a stunning exposé of a multimillion-dollar secret campaign by the Bush administration to sell and manage the war on Iraq. The projected imagery of the US working to liberate the Iraqis and free the world from the menace of WMDs was once widely believed. Meanwhile, the real story of vast corporate profits in Iraq and deaths of a million civilians — more than the widely publicised Rwandan massacres — has not received any attention in the mainstream press.
Imagine a Pakistan where generosity is praiseworthy and greed and corruption are not socially acceptable. Such a society can only be created by reversing current trends and focusing on moral education in families and schools. Initiatives in this direction are essential but require independent thought; imported models for development contain no guidance in this dimension.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 5th, 2011.
COMMENTS (16)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Max: Students are not adults, and are looking for guidance from their teachers. To not provide such guidance is to fail as a teacher. This widespread failure translates into a society where unethical behavior is common. Students that I see come from an environment where cheating is rampant and socially acceptable, and the goal of an education is to earn money. Also quite widespread is the idea that moral constraints are not relevant -- students will readily accept highly paid jobs at multinationals which sell harmful products at inflated prices without thinking about moral implications.
I do my best to teach my students that education is about acquiring knowledge to change ourselves and to change the world around us for the better. This cannot be achieved by cheating. Every human being carries within him the potential for excellence, and we must struggle to realize this potential That life becomes meaningful when we learn to serve others, and our wealth in measured in terms of trust, confidence and affection of our friends and not in terms of money. These lessons cannot be taught by preaching, nor even by courses in business ethics. Instead, one must expose students to role models of ideal behavior, strive to emulate these models personally, and create the desire in students for such emulation. This does require going outside the routine of reading the textbook and explaining it to the student.
@Max:
"Morality is something that you inherit from elders and not something that you pick from schools"
Well it's time that we do not leave the morality to elders only but take steps to introduce it in Schools also.
@Asad Zaman: Dear Dr. Sahib, I am glad that you took the time to write back and to respond some of the questions. My question is mostly about the epistemology of the essay and not necessarily about transition. Here is the thrust of my critique: firms are in the business of profit-making and there is nothing wrong with that as long it does not cross the line and becomes oppressive. Second, citing Milton Friedman in an essay on morality will throw anyone out. I am still at loss to understand your logic (Ford Pinto). The fact is that he, as he always did, favored the Ford Corporation and there are several instances where he talks down on morality and against the business interests (remember his advises to President Reagan and PM Thatcher of Britain. His philosophy is to which we all call: naked capitalism or rip-off capitalism. Third, your essay touches on many issues including Rupert Murdoch’s handling of his tabloid issue. Again my problem was same Rupert Murdoch being cited in an essay on morality. Fourth you apply the concept of greed and advise Pakistani educational institutions to teach morality and also not to look for profit. Pakistani students cannot be angels in a world surrounded by profit-making corporations. Regrettably, I see more corruption, selfishness, and exploitation in Pakistan than any other place I have lived. Our religious sermons did not change our characters. Fifth, I understand your point about healthcare community, but who would work if the profit motive is not there? Morality is something that you inherit from elders and not something that you pick from schools. Work ethics are what you inculcate in yourself. I am in the same profession that you are in (not economics but close enough). I am at the end of my academic career (if market behaved) and teach what I am supposed to teach. If I teach morality, it will be taken very differently (patronizing) at least in this country. My job is to provide them the information and let them make their own decisions. They are adults, and I should expect them making rational choices (economics theory). Should you decide to correspond further, I am asking the editors/moderators of this discussion to provide you my e. mail address. Academia is all about articulation of ideas and dialogue adds to its beauty. If my remarks were too harsh or hurt your feelings, my sincere most apologies. Editors/moderators: Thank you for giving us a chance to exchange ideas. You are doing a great job by moderating these discussions. Please provide Dr. Zaman my e mail address.
Substantive issues raised by commentators are addressed below:
1: Readers comments show that I needed to add a transitional sentence or two at the beginning of the last paragraph: "The sentiment that all is fair in the pursuit of profits has spread over the globe and deeply affects Pakistani society as well. We need to work to change this." Unfortunately, the article already exceeded stringent word count limits ...
2:There is huge difference between using profits or earnings as a means to providing a service, and providing a service as a means to earning money. Those who are spiritually damaged find it hard to believe in existence of human beings who genuinely aim to serve others selflessly. Evidence for the existence of such people is indisputable. Also indisputable is the fact that social norms of service, cooperation, trust, and generosity can be brought into existence and can also be destroyed by the process of education
Debate over Friedmans maxims was over situations like the Ford Pinto, where calculations showed that recall of the defective models would be more expensive than the lawsuits due to the 700 deaths that would be caused by the defect. Similarly, it was argued that pollution, breaking up communities, reneging on contracts to faithful employees, etc. was all permissible in the pursuit of profits.
Harvard Prof Julie Reuben has written a book on how explicit university goals to build character and teach morality could not be achieved, and morality was marginalized in US universities in the twentieth century. Over the globe, we are all following western educational models, which no longer have a moral component. This has led to substantial problems globally and needs to be reversed.
@Max: If you do not believe in Morality, why do you want to do your job 'in an honorable and honest way'? Why not do it in Somalian pirates' way and make more money?
An interesting perspective, but the article is too short and the last paragraph does look out of place. I wish the author had time to explain it a bit more. Not sure if modern economic theories are really applied in Pakistan. Much of its brunt is really faced by the working class of the West
@philosophy student: And I am not sure why you are coming to the defense of worthy professor. I, does not mean “me”, I means “we” as a nation. We have been lectured enough by these wise guys since the earliest days of Pakistan to this day. What happened to all that wonderful advises? And please do not blame the west or anyone else for our own individual and collective misdeeds. If Pakistan is standing at the crossroad, it is our own misdeeds. We can point fingers towards others but that won’t help.
@Max: i think the MORALITY PRESCRIPTIONS ARE NOT PARTICULARLY DIRECTED TOWARD YOU so why are you sounding so much being trangressed and offended. this is the opinin section and as you know he is qualified to express his opinion at a public forum. I dont think anbody is being forced into doing something. and by the way it s not the morality teaching that has taken pakistani nation to where it is now rather IT IS A SEVERE SHORTAGE OF SUCH TEACHING AND A DESIRE AMONG OUR MENTALLY COLONIZED PEOPLE TO APE THE WEST IN EVERY SENSE that has earned all the dishonour for us as a nation.
Dr. Sahib, You may be a very smart person and you are since you have a Ph.D. from Stanford. However, I have some epistemological issues with your essay. Beside hodge-podge nature of you essay, I have heard enough lectures on morality from elders, co-workers, and obviously from religious know-nothings. To sum up my point: Rind itnay gunahgar nahin, jetnay teray pakiza banday hain. (the drunken are not as sinful as your pious may be). So please keep your morality prescriptions to yourself, and let me do my job in an honorable and the honest way. It was the morality teachings that have taken Pakistani nation where it is today.
How is this different from North Korea?
I think some of the writer's logic isn't consistent. Was there really an attempt to compare ethics and corruption in the capitalist West (US) to that in Pakistan?? Anybody who has lived in both Pakistan and the US can quickly answer that one for you. But maybe I misinterpreted the author's intention.
Finally, I'm just glad Islam wasn't brought into the discussion. I kept waiting for it. I'm sure someone will follow expounding the glories of Islam in bygone days...However, factual evidence doesn't really speak well of ethics, honest dealings and lack of corruption in nations with Islam at the forefront of its national identity and social, moral fabric.
He only stated what is obvious. Every business establishment however big or small understands this. The farmer will not sow grain if he thinks it will not get him a profit. How will any establishment pay it's employees, if it is not making profit.
I do not like how the author puts it. Do doctors have no right to make money. Does the author write on ET, as a charitable work, and not with the intention of making money from the ET readers who are ignorant of the knowledge he has.
Making money with honest sweat should not be termed as greed.
Corruption should not be acceptable in any modern society. But for that do people need to be given 'moral' education? Is it not something which any right thinking human-being should see as wrong. Let us consider cases of nations which are least corrupt, like Norway, Finland, Japan e.t.c. Do these countries teach moral education in their schools.
If I get to live in the author's 'ideal' society. I will not be greedy and I will be generous by allowing him and everyone else to be generous with me. After all, why should I waste my energy in being 'greedy' and being the object of everybody's insult.
Brilliant piece on normative side of academic discourse. I hope, economists (social scientists) in Pakistan learn this type of reasoning as well. An economics divorced from social norms (institutions) and history is a bad and misleading economics. In Pakistan, many leading players in the market are trained to pursue cross-sectional studies and argue that changes in behaviours can be made possible with some reforms in monetary-fiscal policies and changes in 'who sits in the commanding heights of economy - state or capitalists (arguing for deregulation and open economy). These simpletons are really very aggressive (and arrogant) when they sit in policy circles. They forget (perhaps purposefully) that economy is an expression of society which has a complex systems of rights and obligations which effects the economic output and its distribution. Anyways, I am impressed to read your article.
Really enjoyed reading this right up to the last paragraph where for some odd reason you brought Pakistan into the discourse and ended rather limply.
Dr Sahib,
No one need want "imported models". We should come up with our own but as I tell the Planning Commission with their "new" growth strategy that is neither new nor growth-oriented, 'where are the numbers'? 'Show me the numbers'!