Introduction
In recent decades, there has been an upsurge of scholarly literature on how ethical theories could be applied not only in organizational contexts, but also in spheres that demand ethical consideration (Shaw et al 2013). Although the literature discusses these theories in a variety of contexts, the present paper focuses on the application of Kantian ethics in water privatisation.
Kantian Perspective on Water Privatisation
Extant literature demonstrates that “in response to the global water crises, the international water industry defines water as a private good to be extracted and traded on free markets outside state ownership and government regulation” (Hughes 2010, p. 525).
Consequently, as suggested by this author, most countries are now promoting the privatisation of water as the most efficient means of delivery and management, particularly in light of increasing costs, political liabilities, pressure from IMF and World bank to minimise water subsidies and public sector debt, as well as the power of business organizations seeking profits from the selling of water.
However, as illustrated below, these factors lack adequate justification and moral bearing when evaluated using the lens of Kantian ethics, with its emphasis on good will, duty, categorical imperative and respect for humanity (Shaw et al 2013).
Unlike consequentialist theories of egoism and utilitarianism which rely on outcomes to know the rightness or wrongness of a given action, Kantian ethics is categorical that the foundation of a moral duty is an “a priori” belief, implying that an action is morally right if its principles can be applied to all rational beings in a consistent way (Dion, 2012).
To progress this argument further, it should be noted that “private character of the market traditionally means that actions and decisions in the market are beyond the direct (intervening) control of government and politics” (Dubbink & van de Ven 2012, p. 231).
Owing to the fact that water is essential for life and a common good that should be accessible to all (Barraque 2004), privatizing water may not be the morally right action to do according to Kantian ethics by virtue of the fact that such an action may never be applied to all rational beings in a consistent way since, as acknowledged by Dubbink and van de Ven (2012), the private market is a domain where agents (private water companies) are legally free to decide on their actions.
In formulating his theory, Kant said that nothing is good in itself except good will, and that it is only by acting from duty do the actions of rational beings achieve moral worth (Shaw et al 2013).
More importantly, in formulating his concept of universal acceptability, Kant stressed the fact that rational beings “should act only according to that maxim by which [they] can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Duran & McNutt 2010, p. 755).
Owing to the fact that critics of the ongoing water privatisation initiatives contend that water will definitely become a market good and hence would be made unavailable for the poor of the planet (Barraque 2004), it can be argued that privatisation of water neither reveals a unique human capacity to act from principle, nor demonstrates a sense of duty to the millions of poor people who may be unable to pay for the services.
If the business people running the water companies are to assume the position of the poor in society, they definitely would not will that water privatisation becomes a universal will. Consequently, the action of privatising water does not have a moral worth according to Kantian ethics.
In formulating the concept of categorical imperative, Kant acknowledged that a morally right action should have the capacity to command unconditionally and binding to every rational agent regardless of his or her specific goals and desires (Smith & Dubbink 2011).
In Kantian ethics, therefore, it is obvious that the act of privatising water is not a morally right action since it may never be binding to the millions of people who may never have the financial capacity to pay for services. However, when contrasted with egoism, it is evident that such an action may be morally right as it maximises the personal success of private water companies.
Similarly, when contrasted with utilitarianism, it may also pass the moral test since it may have the capacity to achieve the greatest total amount of happiness for the greatest number of people in the society.
Lastly, in assessing the issue of respect for humanity, Kant argued that “rational creatures should always treat other rational creatures as ends in themselves and never as only means to ends” (Shaw et al 2013, p. 77).
As rational agents, therefore, private water companies and other agencies overseeing water privatisation may indeed by acting inconsistently if they did not treat those with minimal capacity to pay for the services (poor people) the way they themselves would want to be treated.
Owing to the fact that rational beings (in this case, private water companies) are presumed to have a sense of duty and a sense of what is right and what is wrong from an ethical perspective (McNutt, 2010), they are therefore morally obliged to act in a manner that underlines respect for humanity (Reynolds & Bowie 2004).
Conclusion
From the literature reviewed, it is evident that, in its entirety, water privatisation does not pass the moral test according to Kantian ethics.
The central theme of Kantian ethics seems to be firmly predicated on moral reasoning as well as the inherent character of the action itself, rather than consequences. Consequently, private water companies must provide the essential commodity to those with the means as well as those without the means by means of providing subsidies to the latter.
Reference List
Barraque, B 2004, Water and ethics: Institutional issues, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Web.
Dion, M 2012, ‘Are ethical theories relevant for ethical leadership’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 33 no. 1, pp. 4-24.
Dubbink, W & van de Ven, B 2012, ‘On the duties of commission in commercial life: A Kantian criticism of moral institutionalism’, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, vol. 15 no. 2, pp. 221-228.
Duran, X & McNutt, P 2010, ‘Kantian ethics within transaction cost economies’, International Journal of Social Economics, vol. 37 no. 10, pp. 755-763.
Hughes, RA 2010, ‘Pro-justice ethics, water scarcity, human rights’, Journal of Law & Religion, vol. 25 no. 2, pp. 521-540.
McNutt, PA 2010, ‘Edited ethics: Corporate governance and Kant’s philosophy’, International Journal of Social Economics, vol. 37 no. 10, pp. 741-754.
Reynolds, SJ & Bowie, NE 2004, ‘A Kantian perspective on the characteristics of ethics programs’, Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 14 no. 2, pp. 275-292.
Shaw, WH, Barry, V, Issa, T & Catley, B 2013, Moral issues in business: 2nd Asia Pacific edition, 2nd edn, Cengage Learning, Stamford, CT.
Smith, J & Dubbink, W 2011, ‘Understanding the role of moral principles in business ethics: A Kantian perspective’, Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 21 no. 2, pp. 205-231.