Sociological Rot Versus Individual Worth

BA225 - Week 7 - Lecture - Paul Rux, Ph.D.

I think it is a waste of your and my time to rehash what you can read in the textbook in weekly course lectures. Therefore, I will use this opportunity to go beyond our textbook and to provide some of my own insights into issues from years of study and work.

Chapter 9 in our textbook deals with job discrimination. What strikes me about the approach of the textbook is its heavy reference to and use of sociological constructs, group identity, as the basis for analyzing what is ethical and unethical behavior in the workplace. Everything is a matter of fairness to groups, not individuals.

Because you are a member of a certain group you automatically are good or bad. Because you are a member of a certain group you are automatically rich or poor. Because you are a member of a certain group you deserve "protected status" in law. Because you are a member of a certain group you deserve extra points on job exams.

Notice that the definition of a group in our textbook is not the same as majority, as in Utilitarianism, which preaches the "greatest good for the greatest number, or the majority.
Group in the textbook actually means subgroups within a majority.

Perhaps it is the Libertarian balance in me that favors individual over group identity.

Or perhaps it is the Categorical Imperative of Immanuel Kant in me that dislikes "double standards" for individuals, majority, group, or subgroups.

Or perhaps it is the Utilitarian streak in me that likes "the greatest good for the greatest number."

But I have a hard time with group identity ethics, group identity politics, and group identity business ethics. As I have pointed out in the previous paragraphs, the classic theories or concepts of Ethics do not honor group identity. They honor majorities, individuals, and equality, but they do not apologize for special treatment, favorable or unfavorable, of groups or subgroups.

I am providing a counterpoint to the bias of our textbook. It does not question the assumption that group identity is a valid basis for ethics, in or outside business. I question it, because I find it hard to justify given the classic theories of ethical behavior.

When will the sociologists stop "calling the shots" in our society about what is ethical and unethical?

When will the individual, not the group, become the center of our ethical concern?

When will we start to weigh cases one by one on individual merits, instead of blanket condemnation or praise for somebody because he or she is part of some group?

Yes, as Aristotle noted, we humans are "social animals." We in fact live in groups; we cannot totally divorce ourselves from group identities. However, having agreed with Aristotle, I will interject a dose of Ayn Rand, who argued for the virtue of individual selfishness as an antidote to our society's current obsession with sociological identities.

As Aristotle noted, we do not need a tyranny of a minority or a tyranny of a majority in politics, ethics, economics, or any other field of human endeavor. We need to find an ethical "middle way," a balance, in which we consider and honor the value of both the individual and the group.

Right now we have gone to an extreme in favor of group identity ethics. I think this is unhealthy. The tendency of American society to swing to extremes - including ethical extremes - is in part a result of our Puritan heritage. The Puritans were extremists. They were after-all "Pure!" They were 100%! They were not in the middle at 50/50.

As a result, we in America tend to go overboard. At times this extremism or focused effort helps, as in defeating the Nazis and Japanese in World War II in the defense of our liberties. But we are not fighting an all-out world war to my knowledge today.

If chapter 9 smothers the individual in group identity ethics, textbook chapter 10 documents how the emerging "Nanny State" (a phrase borrowed from former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in England) in our country assumes individuals cannot choose wisely for themselves.
As a result the "Nanny State" must regulate the individual for his or her own good. Of course, politicians or bureaucrats decide what is good or bad.

I know. I am hopelessly out of date. I am talking about old America where individual value, choice, and identity once counted.

Over-reliance on sociology to create an ethical heaven on earth since the 1960's has buried individual value in group identity ethics.

Or am I imagining a Libertarian / Kantian / Utilitarian Golden Age or Garden of Eden?

At some point the thought police will catch up with me. Until then, these are my thoughts on the sociological submergence of individual merit and related ethics in our time.

In time, nobody will remember a time existed without total group identity ethics.