Search results

Donna L. Van Raaphorst provides a detailed statistical analysis of a large sample of Alcatraz Prison inmates using the Social Science Statistical Package. The data, drawn directly from the inmate files, is compared whenever possible with similar data provided by the Bureau of Prisons in order to determine if Alcatraz, often regarded as America's Devil's Island, really incarcerated the so-called “Worst of the Worst” in its time. The results would seem to indicate that Alcatraz inmates were, in fact, not remarkably different from those in any other Federal prison in the system.

While scholars discuss the theory of “Business Ethics,” students grapple with applying those theories to hypothetical case studies and business people struggle to live business ethics in practice. Many fail, casting large and ominous shadows. We are inundated with their stories. We need to hear more often stories of those who have succeeded and why their examples are important to the field of Business Ethics.

This chapter, after providing a brief overview of the differing uses of the term, Business Ethics, expands upon the metaphor of “ethical space” as the eye of a moral hurricane, provides diagrams illustrating the formation of ethical space in a business behavioral context, applies those diagrams to the examples of Andersen and Feuerstein as moral exemplars, discusses ways to mitigate the shadows that eclipsed their example, and suggests ways to enlarge corporate ethical space.

Ethics is a habit learned through mentoring and developed through practice. In a world of conflicting influences, we each carve out our own ethical space that can serve as an example to others as they face their own individual ethical challenges, but at the corporate level, a moral exemplar will inform the larger corporate ethical space only when the leadership of the corporation consciously adopts and constantly reinforces the example of its moral exemplar.

This chapter uses the visual metaphor of the eye of a hurricane to discuss the formation and importance of ethical space to moral exemplars in a world of conflicting influences and moral pressures.

My main point is that the 1920s Chicago School got its scholastic or school-like quality primarily from its notion of what a human being is, from its social psychology, and only secondarily from its sociology. These sociologists developed the novel idea that humans are constituted by symbolic or cultural elements, not biological forces or instincts. They applied Franz Boas's discovery of culture to human nature and the self. In particular, they showed that ethnic groups and their subcultures are not biologically determined or driven by fixed instincts. In the 1910s and 1920s, the Americanization movement held that ethnic groups could be ranked on how intelligent, how criminal, and therefore how fit for democracy they were. This powerful movement, the extreme wing of which was lead by the Northern Ku Klux Klan, advocated different levels of citizenship for different ethnic groups. The Chicago sociologists spear-headed the idea that humans have a universal nature, are all the same ontologically, and therefore all the same morally and legally. In this way, they strengthened the foundations of civil liberties. The Chicago professors advanced their position in a quiet, low-keyed manner, the avoidance of open political controversy being the academic style of the time. Their position was nevertheless quite potent and effective. The actual sociology of the school, also quite important, was largely an expression of the democratic social psychology. In addition, the sociology was dignified and elevated by the moral capital of their theory of human nature.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.