By Aleksey Bashtavenko

Academic Composition

Socrates had an interesting discussion about the ring of Gyges, which allows someone to do bad things without facing any consequences. This concept has been portrayed in popular culture as an invisibility cloak, like the one in “Lord of the Rings.” The main point Socrates made was that immoral actions are wrong, whether or not the person is held accountable. It’s important to note that what we consider just might not always align with what can be proven in a court of law or public opinion. Sometimes, it’s simply impractical or impossible to bring an evildoer to justice.

Transnational corporations have recognized this gap between moral philosophy and real-life situations for a long time. They have taken advantage of this ambiguity in various ways. One example is Milton Friedman’s “Shareholder Theory” of business ethics, which many critics have rightfully called the “dumbest theory in moral philosophy.” Friedman argued that corporations only have one moral responsibility: maximizing profit for their shareholders, regardless of the impact on other stakeholders. It’s clear that this position serves the corporations’ own interests, and it’s no surprise that Friedman’s work was supported by his corporate sponsors, who funded his publications and appearances on talk shows. Similarly, Peter Drucker dismissed the importance of business ethics in his essay “What is Business Ethics,” suggesting that it was merely a facade for businesses to manage their public image without truly caring about moral integrity. Essentially, Drucker described how corporations have embraced the power of the ring of Gyges.

Since then, Friedman and his “Chicago Boys” have faced criticism from liberal social activists and ethicists who have debunked the self-righteous moralizing of pro-corporate think tanks like the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation. At that time, these criticisms seemed convincing, especially as the Democratic Party appeared to support the interests of underprivileged Americans. However, things started to change with the election of Bill Clinton, who led the Democratic Party towards a more neo-liberal stance. They shifted away from the anti-business attitudes previously associated with liberals like Ralph Nader, who advocated for consumer well-being. While traditional leftists such as Bernie Sanders and Michael Moore, who aimed to reduce wealth inequality, have been vocal within the party, they have been marginalized and influenced by the pro-corporate Democrats.

To counter the cultural influence of Milton Friedman and his Shareholder Theory, an alternative called stakeholder theory emerged. However, this approach also betrayed public trust with a similar level of cynicism. Instead of focusing on ordinary Americans who suffered from income inequality and lack of economic opportunities, the emphasis shifted to specific groups like the LGBTQ+ community, women, people of color, and otherkin. In essence, business became a game of money, where the more wealth one had, the more influence they wielded over corporate actions and business ethics. These so-called “woke” concerns became the worries of the privileged, rather than addressing the issues faced by average Americans. What is the purpose of business ethics? To generate wealth for the most prosperous and well-connected of businesspeople.