Outline
Thesis statement: Aristotle discussed much about happiness in society and how it could be achieved. This paper examines whether the ideas of Aristotle can be achieved through application of Friedman’s ideas on corporate social responsibility.
It is established that Aristotle’s ideas are compatible to those of Friedman.
Analogy of Aristotle’s ideas to those of Friedman
Aristotle is one of the classical philosophers who tried to understand society at his time. Most philosophers analyzed social, economic and political events. Just like Plato, Aristotle was trying to conceptualize justice in society by trying to understand leadership patterns.
He was much concerned about who should rule in society. He also evaluated factors that facilitated happiness. Aristotle observed that justice, which is achieved through the rule of law, is a human virtue that has to be observed and treated with high esteem.
Aristotle was a close friend of Plato but he did not believe in socialism where men shared property in society, including women. He also differed with Plato over who should rule.
While Plato argued that the best should rule in society, having attained high education, Aristotle argued that the rule of law should always be embraced. Aristotle believed that the rule of men would not guarantee better governance in society. To Aristotle, the rule of law should always be given precedence.
In the same line of thinking, Friedman argues that corporate social responsibility is mere propaganda exercised by multinational corporations and organizations whose main agenda is to further selfish interests (Friedman, 1970).
The philosopher observes that most businesses purport to support free enterprise by arguing that organizations and corporations are not simply concerned about profit making but are also keen on promoting desirable social values.
In other words, business executives assume that corporations have social conscience since they promote social services such as employment, equality and environmental conservation. By doing this, huge corporations and organizations would be promoting socialism, which is completely impossible according to Friedman.
It is from this analysis that Friedman observes that only individuals, who might be business proprietors or executives, have social responsibilities. Friedman underscores the fact that businesses cannot exist without the owners or executives (Friedman, 1970).
In this regard, the owner of the business has a direct responsibility to employees. Employees are required to operate according to the desires and wishes of the directors of the company. Friedman observes that a conflict of interest emerges between the owner of the business and employees.
The owner wishes to maximum profits while employees demand better pay and advanced working conditions. Both workers and employees are guided by the law and ethical values. The owner of the business must exercise openness, fairness and must operate according to the set laws.
Theory of Happiness
Aristotle’s theory of happiness can be achieved through the application of Friedman’s ideas because happiness in society is only guaranteed through the rule of law. Each person must follow societal rules and regulations irrespective of his or her position in society.
Friedman postulates that both employees and employers must live according to certain laws that guarantee normalcy and constancy in society (Friedman, 1970). According to Aristotle, man must live within the constitution in case happiness is to be achieved.
In his works on politics, Aristotle puts forth arguments to support his position that man without the constitution is a beast (Chappell, 2006). The constitution has some advantages that make it strong as opposed to other forms of leadership styles.
The constitution is consensus based implying that it is a contract between the governed and the governor. Both parties are willing participants meaning that the governor cannot participate in any activity that runs contrary to the will of the governed.
In other words, the administrator cannot be engaged in any incident related to gross misconduct. The will of the people shapes both the policy and the actions of the ruler. In fact, Aristotle concurs with Friedman by suggesting that the governor is a manifestation of what the people want.
Both the governor and the governed must adhere to the rule of law because without the agreement corporations according to Friedman and the city-state according to Aristotle are ungovernable.
Moreover, Both Aristotle and Friedman observe that the constitution represents public bond and public will. This implies that the constitution makes everyone in society equal, which would further guarantee happiness.
The constitution does not discriminate between the mighty and the subjects according to Friedman and between the King and the populace according to Aristotle. In the eyes of the law, all are equal. Therefore, the constitution epitomizes the will of the people that is, the general will since it ignores individual will.
Individual will is selfish, perverted and mainly concerned with the pursuit of the earthly. The ideas of Aristotle coincide with those of Friedman because the law guarantees order in society. It is the same law that must be the guiding principle for all organizations and governments since the law will never fail.
Man can easily fail however good intentional he or she might be. In this line of thinking, the two philosophers are against democratic leadership.
Democracy according to Aristotle is the government of the unfit because it can easily lead to the tyranny of the multitude. Democracy is an emotive type of system because it does not promote happiness in society and in organizations.
Aristotle and Politics
The main contribution of Aristotle is how politics influences an individual’s happiness. Aristotle was of the view that politics make people happy (Schollmeier, 1994). According to Aristotle, beatitude can only be achieved when people are engaged in political activities.
He argues that man is only complete when he or she participates in political activities because man is both a social and political animal. This captures the universality of politics since it is ubiquitous. According to Aristotle, politics is the master of all arts since it is concerned with the end in itself.
Being a biologist, he was dismissive of biology for it concerns itself more with the process as opposed to the end. In other words, biology is always concerned with the search for a solution to a problem afflicting society. According to Aristotle, this is not the end. He views politics from the premise that the end justifies the means.
It is in line with this that he dismisses economics for the dilemma with economics is the search for wealth but not happiness. Equally, the study of military science/strategy cannot give man happiness since achieving victory in the battlefield does not guarantee happiness instead emptiness prevails.
Friedman argued in the same line with Aristotle as regards to politics. In organizations, many politics goes on in order to achieve self-interests. Politics make people to distinguish between the two sides of extremes.
Being too good is negative just as being too bad is negative. Politics makes a man to choose the middle path as opposed to the extremes. Aristotle argued that people should concentrate on political issues since everything is achieved through politics.
This is a central argument to the ideas of Aristotle and underscores his idea that politics is a centrifugal force. All other activities revolve around politics. Friedman observes that corporations participate in some form of politics to achieve their desired goals and objectives. This is usually done through promotion of social responsibility.
Businesspersons utilize social responsibility to win people’s confidence in order to make sales and increase profits. For instance, Friedman argues that a chief executive officer cannot be influenced by the public to reduce the prices of products. This would be considered a serious violation of the company’s rules and regulations.
In case a private administrator imposes taxes to people in order to use them in social responsibilities, such an administrator ceases to be a private employee and turns out to be a civil servant.
Friedman tries to argue that the doctrine of social responsibility is not real in many corporations instead it is pure politics. It is carried out to satisfy the wishes of the ruling elites, who are mostly politicians with an influence in the market.
Conclusion
Just like Friedman, Aristotle believes that a just society is happier than unjust society. Justice can only be achieved if all men can be put under the law, for it is the law regardless of its nature that removes the beast character in human beings.
Aristotle concurs with Friedman’s ideas that law in general is the equivalent of reason or rationality because it governs man’s behavior. In other words, law makes people to avoid evil, which can destroy the very survival of society.
References
Chappell, T. (2006). Values and Virtues: Aristotelianism in Contemporary Ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970.
Schollmeier, P. (1994). Other Selves: Aristotle on Personal and Political Friendship. Albany: State University of New York Press.