JOELGEHMAN.COM

Already this summer I’ve read a dozen or so books, most of them more or less academic. One of the books I read this weekend was Hilary Putnam’s (2004) Ethics Without Ontology.

The book consists of six lectures: four on “ethics without ontology” and two on “enlightenment and pragmatism.” Given my various research interests, I found the most profound and interesting parts of the book to be in essays 1, 4, and 5.

Essay 1: “Ethics Without Metaphysics.” This essay sets up Putnam’s next three essays.  On p. 24 he brings in Levinas: The foundation of ethics is my immediate recognition, when confronted with a suffering fellow human being, that I have an obligation to do something. No me, no ethics. No other, no ethics.  Thus, we can say that ethics is both personal and relational. To not feel the obligation is to not be ethical.

On p. 28, building on Dewey, he introduces the concept of “practical problems.” He interprets Dewey: Solving practical problems is the concern of ethics.

From here he turns to the issue of “controversiality” (pp 29-32). Solutions to practical problems are controversial — unless they are put into practice and succeed to the satisfaction of all those involved. In other words, problems cannot be solved in principle, only in practice, and even then, the solutions may “fail.” Indeed, even when a practical problem is successfully solved, there is still controversy as to whether the successful solution can be generalized to the next problem that seems similar. Even the “similarity” between problems is typically controversial!

Essay 4: “Ontology: An Obituary.” On p. 74 Putnam reprises quite quickly the “collapse of the fact/value dichotomy.” Valuings do not contrast with descriptions. There is an overlap between the class of valuings and the class of descriptions. As with solutions to practical problems (which are always ethical), ethical claims (i.e., valuings) are frequently controversial. But so are questions of fact (p. 75). In short, factual, descriptive and ethical valuings are controversial.

Some ethical questions are such that agreement is unlikely until such time as it can be demonstrated that we agree (p. 76). [Note the performative quality to ethical controversies.] And even in the case of success — i.e., cases where the problem is solved for now — questions may arise as to whether the same thing would work again the next time, or in the next case , etc.

If we try something in connection with a social problem and it works well, meaning to the satisfaction of those involved, those who object to such a solution in another situation are unlikely to concede that it will work again (pp. 76-77). In short, it is impossible to “verify” that something is the right thing to do, even when the success criteria are agreed upon, unless you have actually done it, and it has worked to everyone’s satisfaction. But even then, questions may remain about its ongoing applicability. This is a general feature of practical problems, that is to say, a general feature of ethical problems.

Essay 5: “The Three Enlightenments.” Lengthy quote from Dewey on the “common good” (p. 97). In short, the common good is only possible when it involves those whose benefits are intended. Again, more interpretation of Dewey as positing a kind of participatory democracy as integral to resolving social problems (pp. 99-100).

Although not invoked, recall Levinas’ ethics as implicating a me-other relationality. From this Putnam concludes that contra to Kant, Hobbes, etc., there can be no morality prior to sociality (p. 101). That is to say, moral beings do not confront the social world. Rather social beings confront the moral world, or perhaps, moral worlds. Although Putnam has supposedly done away with ontology, clearly he is saying there is a primacy of sociality over ethicality. But if that is the case, if I am social before I am ethical, then there are bound to be ethical lapses in social life. May capacity for ethics grows out of my social life. The ethical response is a response to the confrontation of the other.

This semester I am teaching MGMT 451W Business, Ethics and Society, which is a required course for management majors at Smeal.  It is also a W course, which means that it is writing intensive.  As such it also fulfills one of their degree writing requirements.  Because of the focus on writing (and the amount of grading it generates) the class size is thankfully kept small — 25 students.

Our latest assignment asked: Is Starbucks a socially responsible company? I divided the assignment into two parts: 1) an individually authored paper (3-page maximum), and 2) participation in a team debate. First, students were giving the option of choosing their own teams or having me assign them to a team. (All picked the former option.) 

I then assigned each team to a particular stakeholder group (i.e., employees, consumers, or suppliers), along with a particular position (either arguing that Starbucks is or is not ethically and socially responsible towards the assigned stakeholder group).

In addition to being assigned a core group of five readings, everyone was expected to find 2 additional legitimate, credible sources related to their assigned stakeholder position . The papers were then to summarize the arguments for their assigned position (2 pages) and to counter expected arguments on their opponents (1 page). The assigned readings included:

• Argenti, P. 200 “Collaborating With Activists: How Starbucks Works With NGOs.” California Management Review.
• Herbst, M. Dec 31, 2008. “Starbucks’ Union Blues.” Business Week.
• Maher, K. Jan 23, 2008. “Starbucks Emails Describe Efforts to Stop Unionization.” Wall Street Journal.
• Starbucks Corporation. “2007 Corporate Social Responsibility Report.”
• Stone, B. Jul 4, 2008. “Lax Real Estate Decisions Hurt Starbucks.” New York Times. 

Each team was then expected to combine these individual papers together for an in-class debate. On the day of the debate each of the six teams argued their side for 5 minutes.  Then we took about 5 minutes for them to caucus and decide how to spend their 2 minutes of rebuttal time.  

Along the way each team rated the four teams not related to its own position (e.g., the pro consumer team rated both employee teams and both supplier teams, but not themselves or the con consumer team). I also rated each debate team. Grades were assigned based on a combination of individual papers and each team’s ability to combine all the individual work into a cogent argument.

Along the way I developed a Debate Rating Sheet, a Grading Sheet, and an Assignment Feedback Sheet (designed for me to assess the assessment, namely, how well the assignment accomplished my learning objectives). Each of these is provided below.

Overall, the quality of the papers and the debate teams was better than I expected. Perhaps more importantly, feedback on the assignment exceeded my expectations in terms of the the learning and reflection it provoked on the part of the students. It turns out that many of them were assigned to positions that ran contrary to their own feelings and this forced them to see issues in a new light.

Through the assignment others recognized their own tendency to argue based on feelings and not credible evidence. Critically, almost everyone seems to have come away with the realization that ethics and social responsibility are not black and white issues. Instead, telling the story of companies such as Starbucks is complicated, one that defies a simple explanation or determination.

Download Debate Rating Sheet (29k .doc)
Download Grading Sheet (28k .doc)
Download Assignment Feedback Sheet (28k .doc)